Baldwin v. Green
| Decision Date | 31 January 1847 |
| Citation | 10 Mo. 410 |
| Parties | BALDWIN v. GREEN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM PLATTE CIRCUIT COURT.
Green brought his action before a justice of the peace, against Baldwin for a failure to work on the road, over which the former was overseer. The case went to the Circuit Court, where Green having obtained judgment, Baldwin appealed to this court. The only question presented for the decison of this court, is whether the act incorporating the town of Platte City, divests the County Court of Platte county of their jurisdiction over that part of the road lying within the corporate limits of said town.
The act of incorporation, Local laws, 1844-5, p. 97, § 4, contains an enumeration of the powers vested in the board of trustees, and among them is the power “to open, establish, widen, extend and repair streets, &c., and to regulate, graduate, pave and improve the streets of said town.” If the jurisdiction of the County Court be superseded by the foregoing provisions, it is by implication, for the language does not necessarily operate a suspension of their general control over the subject of roads within the town limits. By a further examination of the enumerated powers, we may collect with certainty what was the intention of the General Assembly, and be enabled consequently to put that construction on the act which was intended. The act further provides that the board of trustees may pass by-laws “to prohibit gambling and gaming-houses; to prevent or restrain the meeting of slaves; to prevent and restrain bawdy-houses and other disorderly houses; to levy and collect taxes upon personal and real estate in said town.” These are all subjects cognizable by the State courts and her authorities and the jurisdiction given to the trustees of said town could not have been intended to divest the courts of jurisdiction or the State of the right to levy a tax on the property of the inhabitants residing within the corporate limits. And yet if the construction contended for be correct as to the jurisdiction over the roads, no reason can be found why the property of the inhabitants of a town, made subject to taxation by the trustees, should not be exempt from the payment of a State or county tax. The State courts would also be powerless “to prohibit gambling and gaming-houses,” and the morals of the inhabitants be exclusively left in the keeping of the trustees of the town. A statute working such important changes in society should, we think, be strictly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kessells
... ... jurisdiction may have and enforce laws concurrently ... [Harrison v. State, 9 Mo. 530; Baldwin v ... Green, 10 Mo. 410; State v. Gordon, 60 Mo. 383; ... State v. Wister, 62 Mo. 592; State v ... Harper, 58 Mo. 530; State v. Binder, 38 Mo ... ...
-
State v. Kessells
...clearly surrendered to the municipality, each jurisdiction may have and enforce laws concurrently. Harrison v. State, 9 Mo. 530; Baldwin v. Green, 10 Mo. 410, State v. Gordon, 60 Mo. 383; State v. Wister, 62 Mo. 592; State v. Harper, 58 Mo. 530; State v. Binder, 38 Mo. 450; State v. Vic. De......
-
State v. LeWis
...appellant: Sec. 20, Wagner's Statutes, p. 502, was not repealed by the act of March 4, 1870.-- The State v. De Bar, 58 Mo. 397; Baldwin v. Green, 10 Mo. 410; The State v. County Court, 41 Mo. 453; St. Louis v. Insurance Co., 47 Mo. 146; The State v. Fiala, 47 Mo. 310; The State v. Draper, 4......
-
Gates v. Crandall
...of such grant of power is to give the State and municipal government concurrent jurisdiction. [Harrison v. State, 9 Mo. 530; Baldwin v. Green, 10 Mo. 410.] Recently, State v. Kessells, 120 Mo.App. 233, 96 S.W. 494, we discussed this question and now refer to that case where authorities, in ......