Bambrick Bros. Const. Co. v. Semple Place Realty Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1917
• Docket Number: No. 18471.,18471.
• Citation: 193 S.W. 543,270 Mo. 450
• Parties: BAMBRICK BROS. CONST. CO. v. SEMPLE PLACE REALTY CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

193 S.W. 543

270 Mo. 450

BAMBRICK BROS. CONST. CO. v. SEMPLE PLACE REALTY CO. et al.

No. 18471.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 12, 1917.

Motion for Rehearing Denied March 30, 1917.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; James E. Withrow, Judge.

Suits by the Bambrick Bros. Construction Company against the Semple Place Realty Company, J. D. Lyon, trustee, and others. From judgments for plaintiff, J. D. Lyon and others appeal. Affirmed, providing plaintiff enters a remittitur of costs.

C. R. Skinker, of St. Louis, for appellants. T. J. Rowe, Thos. J. Rowe, Jr., and Henry Rowe, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

BOND, P. J.

I. Plaintiff, the Bambrick Bros. Construction Company, a corporation, instituted 21 separate actions to enforce the lien of as many special tax bills against separate parcels of land in St. Louis owned by the various defendants, said tax bills covering the cost of the construction of the second section of the South Harlem joint district sewer. The petition in each case was similar in form; the variance being the parties defendant and the description of the parcels of land against which the tax bills were issued.

The petition pleaded the passage of an ordinance by the city of St. Louis to establish a sewer district to be known as the South Harlem joint sewer district; that said district was established and an ordinance passed for the construction of the second section of said joint district sewer; that provision was made for the payment of the city's portion of the cost of same; that plaintiff entered into a contract with the city in accordance with the charter and ordinance; that upon the completion of the work the president of the board of public improvements computed the cost and assessed the same as a special tax upon all the property in the South Harlem district, and special tax bills were made out, registered, countersigned, and delivered to plaintiff. The petition then alleged the ownership of the lot, the amount computed, assessed and charged against the lots described, the designation of the Franklin Bank as the depositary to receive payment, delivery of notice of the tax bill to the city marshal, the return on the tax bill that the persons named could not be found, and prayed judgment for the amount of the special tax bill, and that same be adjudged a lien on each particular parcel of land, and that same be sold to pay the amount of the special tax and costs.

The answer in 19 of the suits, besides a general denial, averred that plaintiff did not file with the comptroller of St. Louis a written notice of the filing of the suits, and in certain of the suits it was averred that certain proceedings were still pending on behalf of the city of St. Louis for the condemnation of specified streets. Plaintiff's reply was a general denial and a denial of the new matter of the various answers.

By agreement all of the suits were tried together in division No. 8 of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. The court rendered final judgment in each of said cases in favor of the plaintiff and against the various defendants and declared each of said special tax bills a lien upon the particular parcel of land described therein, together with interest and costs, and ordered that the land be sold to pay the same. The defendants appealed. Seven of these appeals are comprised in this record; three are comprised in our docket No. 18472, 193 S. W. 545; and eleven in No. 18473, 193 S. W. 545.

II. There is no question that the work done by the contractors in this case has gone into the betterment of the property of defendants, nor that it was performed in accordance with the contract under which the work was let, nor that it has enhanced the value of the property of the defendants as contemplated when the improvements were ordered by the city authorities. Sheehan v. Owen, 82 Mo. 465. The only questions presented by the appeal are certain objections to the validity of the tax bills under the charter provisions of the city of St. Louis.

The first position taken by appellants is that the tax bills are void because not issued in accordance with section 22 of article 6 of the St. Louis charter, which provided for the issuance of a "special tax bill against each lot or parcel of ground in the joint sewer district, giving the name of the owner thereof," etc. It is contended that the phrase "lot or parcel of ground" is defined by the following language contained in section 14 of article 6 of the St. Louis charter:

"Lot Defined. — The word `lot' as used in this section shall be held to mean the lots as shown by recorded plats of additions or subdivisions, but if there be no such recorded plat, or if the owners of property have disregarded the lines of lots as platted, and have treated two or more lots or fractions thereof as one lot, then the whole parcel of ground or lots so treated as one, shall be regarded as a lot for the purposes hereof"

— also that, in view of the evidence showing that at the time of the issuance of the tax bills in suit the area covered by the recorded plat (according to the subdivisions and boundaries of which the tax bills were issued, known as Semple place) had been sold out as a body under a prior deed of trust, leaving nothing thereafter but one inclosure for the entire tract, therefore one tax bill should have been issued against the whole tract.

It will be noted in comparing the two provisions of the charter that the latter defining the word "lot" and the sense in which it is to be used does not purport in any way to define what shall be the significance of the phrase "parcel of ground." Unless, therefore, appellants are able to show that the property affected by the tax bills in...