Bayer v. City of Kansas City

• Decision Date: 07 March 1925
• Docket Number: 25,480
• Citation: 233 P. 1012,118 Kan. 27
• Parties: ROBERT S. BAYER, Appellee, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO., Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

233 P. 1012

118 Kan. 27

ROBERT S. BAYER, Appellee, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO., Appellant

No. 25,480

Supreme Court of Kansas

March 7, 1925

Decided January, 1925.

Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 3; WILLIAM H MCCAMISH, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION -- Foreign Domicile -- Proprietary Capacity -- Local Jurisdiction. When a foreign municipal corporation comes into this state and establishes, maintains and operates a water system herein, it does not bring its sovereignty into this state, but is conducting its business here in its proprietary capacity, and for liabilities arising in this state from the conduct of such business here it may be sued in the courts of this state.

Hugh J. Smith, John B. Pew, both of Kansas City, Solon T. Gilmore, and Ilus M. Lee, both of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellant.

James F. Getty, and Frank L. Bates, both of Kansas City, for the appellee.

OPINION

HARVEY, J.:

This is an appeal from an order overruling a motion to set aside a default judgment on the ground that it was void. The defendant is a municipal corporation of Missouri, having a waterworks plant situated in Wyandotte county, Kansas, where it has pumping stations, reservoirs and other equipment for pumping and purifying water, which is conveyed through water mains to Kansas City, Mo., and also conveys and sells water to private consumers in Kansas City, Kan.

In February, 1922, the plaintiff, Robert S. Baker, brought an action against the city of Kansas City, Mo., in the district court of Wyandotte county, Kansas, and alleged that he was a resident of Wyandotte county, Kansas; that the defendant was a corporation organized under the laws of Missouri; that in September, 1916, he was employed in writing to work for defendant, and continued in its employ until July, 1921, when he was wrongfully discharged and thereby damaged in the sum of $ 2,500. A second cause of action was for $ 110 alleged to be due him for services actually performed. A summons was issued and served upon the principal officer of the defendant, in charge of the defendant's business in this state. No appearance was made on behalf of defendant, and on January 5, 1923, the cause came on for trial, evidence was taken, and judgment was rendered for plaintiff for $ 2,500. In June, 1923, a garnishment summons was issued on the judgment and served upon Armour & Co. The garnishee's answer showed an indebtedness to the water department of Kansas City, Mo. The defendant then entered a special appearance in the action in Wyandotte county; averred that it is a municipal corporation of Missouri and a resident of that state; that no summons had been served upon it in Wyandotte county, Kansas; that the court had acquired no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or the subject matter of the action; that the action is inherently local and could not be maintained outside of the jurisdiction in which defendant is located; and moved the court to set aside the judgment on the ground that it was void. The motion was overruled and the defendant appealed. The question to be determined is, Was the judgment void? For a void judgment may be set aside at any time, on motion (R. S. 60-3009), and, of course, a judgment entered without jurisdiction is void.

We naturally think of a municipal corporation as being a political or governmental portion of the state in which it is situated, and its governmental powers being confined to that state--even the ordinary governmental powers of a state stop with the state line--and there is more reason why a city, in respect to rights or liabilities respecting its purely governmental functions, should not be compelled to litigate in another jurisdiction, and the courts have uniformly so held.

But with respect to liabilities growing out of the exercise of its proprietary capacity there is no reason why that rule should apply. We are not now concerned with the right or authority of a municipal corporation of another state to conduct its proprietary functions within this state; it is conceded appellant is, and was doing so, and upon an extensive scale. The appellant has its waterworks, with pumping station, reservoirs, and water mains, actually situate in Wyandotte county in this state, and engages in the business of furnishing water to persons, firms and corporations in this state for profit, or pay. Hence it is exercising its proprietary capacity outside of the state of its domicile and within this state. The appellee is a resident of this state, and was employed by and worked for appellant in this state in the conduct of its business functions herein, and out of that employment arose the damages complained of in the action, in which the judgment sought to be set aside was rendered.

In The State v. Holcomb, 85 Kan. 178, 116...