Boals v. Garden City

Citation50 S.W.2d 179
Decision Date23 May 1932
Docket NumberNo. 17505.,17505.
PartiesBOALS et al. v. GARDEN CITY.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
50 S.W.2d 179
BOALS et al.
No. 17505.
Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.
May 23, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cass County; Leslie A. Bruce, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Frank B. Boals and others against City of Garden City. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed, and remanded.

G. R. Chamberlain and Crouch & Crouch, all of Harrisonville, for appellants.

H. P. Dyar, of Garden City, and Silvers & Hargus and Will Hargus, all of Harrisonville, for respondent.


This is an action in equity to test the reasonableness and validity of a town ordinance extending the limits of the municipality. The petition was filed by Boals and four others of the same name, and alleged to be, not only in their behalf, but also in behalf of other residents and taxpayers similarly affected who might care to join.

The defendant filed a special demurrer to the petition based in part upon the grounds now urged by respondent that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that the petition shows on its face that said action is barred by laches. The demurrer was sustained, plaintiffs

50 S.W.2d 180

excepted, refused to plead further, suffered judgment, and duly appealed.

The foregoing is sufficient to show the questions presented. Under such circumstances it is usual to set forth the petition in its entirety, but in this instance, on account of tautology and the unusual length of the petition, we seek a degree of brevity, and, without omitting substance, epitomize the allegations.

The petition states that the defendant is a city of the fourth class; that by an ordinance submitted and duly approved by the voters of the town the corporate limits were extended in May, 1910; that 15½ acres of the real estate of plaintiffs were thereby included in said limits; that plaintiffs' land consists of a farm of 50.50 acres and was distant from the city limits before the extension; that the land of plaintiffs included in said extension is all used for cultivating and grazing land, except a small portion occupied by their house, barn, and other ordinary farm buildings; that the ground included in the extension consists of a large tract of farming, agricultural, and grazing land covering approximately 240 acres, and is one and one-fourth times the original area of said city at the time the ordinance was passed; that the extension is on two sides of the city, described by metes and bounds, and said extension does not cause the boundaries to be regular, but more irregular; that there had been no growth or increase in the population of the city to necessitate such extension for any proper municipal purpose; that it was not needed for any natural growth or for commercial or residential purposes; that practically the entire land included was and is kept and used for farming purposes, and none of the ground has been platted or held for sale as town lots, or divided into lots for said purposes, and none of said real estate is held to be brought in the market and sold as town property when it reaches a value corresponding with the views of the owners; that none of said real estate furnishes an abode for a densely settled community, or represents the actual growth of the town beyond its former boundaries; that none of said real estate is needed for the extension of streets or sewers, gas or water system, or to supply space for abode or business of its residents, or for extension of needed police regulations; that none of the real estate is valuable by reason of its adaptability for prospective town uses, and that whatever value the real estate has is for farming and agricultural purposes; that the value of said land has not been increased by being taken into the city limits, but diminished; that none of the land in the area caused by the extension can be used as city property; that it has not been platted into lots, blocks, or streets, and there is no settlement upon it, but the annexed territory has few houses, and each house in the annexed territory is on a broad acre tract ranging from 2½ to 35 acres; that said land and the residents thereon do not need police protection and have received none; nor have they received any other benefits from said city government; that Garden City has no municipal water or light plant; that lights are furnished by private corporations which are equipped to supply the annexed territory; that said territory is traversed by one road running north and south, one running east and west, and one through road bounding the annexed territory on the north, which said road is excluded from the corporate limits of the city by said ordinance, by reason whereof the larger amount of the annexed territory adjoining said road while subject to municipal taxes would be deprived of the benefit of said road; that the sole purpose for the extension of the said territory was to subject the said real estate and the residents thereof to city taxation, and that no possible benefit can inure to plaintiffs and others similarly situated; that the extension of the boundaries of said city is against the wishes of the majority of the property owners in the district included and against their interest, and the result of such extension will be to impose upon the plaintiffs and all other residents of the annexed territory the burden of municipal taxes without deriving any benefit therefrom; that by reason of said extension personal property will be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Kelly v. City of Cape Girardeau
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 7, 1936
    ...c. 896, and same case, 74, A. L. R. 550 annotated; Hunter v. Hunter, 39 S.W.2d 359, l. c. (7-8) 363; Same case, 327 Mo. 817; Boals v. Garden City, 50 S.W.2d 179, l. (6-8) 182; Waner v. Bank of Pendleton, 65 S.W.2d 167, l. c. 171; State ex inf. Shartel ex rel. City of Sikeston v. Mo. Utiliti......
  • Missouri Elec. Power Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 25, 1941
    ...Russo v. Miller, 3 S.W.2d 266; Kansas City v. K. C. Terminal, 25 S.W.2d 1055; Kirksville ex rel. v. Harrington, 35 S.W.2d 614; Beals v. Garden City, 50 S.W.2d 179; Seifert Poplar Bluff, 112 S.W.2d 93; 43 C. J., secs. 289, 316, pp. 271, 303; 44 C. J., secs. 4551, 4555, 4572, 4577, pp. 1376, ......
  • Graves v. Little Tarkio Drainage Dist. No. 1
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 13, 1939
    ...155; Olbert v. Key, 93 S.W.2d 1048; Hamilton v. North East Mut. Ins. Assn., 116 S.W.2d 159. Neither is there any laches. Beals v. Garden City, 50 S.W.2d 179; C. J., p. 210, sec. 211; State v. Coon, 295 S.W. 822; Carlin v. Bacon, 16 S.W.2d 46. Dalton, C. Hyde and Bradley, CC., concur. OPINIO......
  • Algonquin Golf Club v. City of Glendale
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 2, 1935
    ...City, 50 S.W.2d 179. (2) A desire or need for additional revenue is not a sufficient ground for the annexation of territory. Boals v. Garden City, supra. (3) extension of city limits should be based upon some proper municipal purpose, such as the necessary extension of streets, gas mains, s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT