Cirese v. Spitcaufsky
| Decision Date | 13 July 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 43574,43574,1 |
| Citation | 259 S.W.2d 836 |
| Parties | CIRESE v. SPITCAUFSKY et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
David M. Proctor, City Counselor, John J. Cosgrove, Associate City Counselor, Kansas City, for appellants.
J. K. Owens and I. I. Ozar, Kansas City, for respondent.
VAN OSDOL, Commissioner.
This appeal was originally perfected to the Kansas City Court of Appeals, but that court was of the view that appellate jurisdiction of the cause is in this court on the ground the case involves 'the construction of the Constitution of the United States or of this state', V.A.M.S.Const. Art. V, Sec. 3, and the cause was transferred to this court. Cirese v. Spitcaufsky, Mo.App., 253 S.W.2d 512. However, we have examined the transcript of the record; have carefully read the able opinion of the Court of Appeals; and have come to the conclusion that the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction of this case.
Plaintiff, the owner of two brick buildings in Kansas City, instituted this action for an injunction and for actual and punitive damages against defendants Charles and Hyman Spitcaufsky, contractors, and against Frank, L. Lang and Reed McKinley, officers of the City of Kansas City.
In his original petition plaintiff alleged that defendants, and each of them, conspiring together, were trespassing upon and demolishing plaintiff's described property, and unless restrained 'will tear down and carry away said building(s) and deprive this plaintiff of his property, both real and personal and will greatly damage the property without due process of law, without authority, and in violation of law and by reason thereof are depriving this plaintiff of his property rights in violation of the constitution of the State of Missouri and of the United States.'
The City of Kansas City moved to intervene, asserting that defendants Lang and McKinley and defendants Charles and Hyman Spitcaufsky were acting for the city under the provisions of Section 302(d) of city's Ordinance No. 9519. And, having become a party defendant, city (and defendants Lang and McKinley) by separate answer pleaded Section 302(d) of the Ordinance No. 9519, as follows, 'Whenever any building or other structure has become so damaged by wind, fire, deterioration or other cause or causes and is in such condition, in the opinion of the Building Commissioner, as to constitute the same an immediate hazard dangerous to life, limb or property, or to the public, because of immediate danger of collapse, the Building Commissioner shall cause the removal and demolition thereof forthwith and without notice.' The answer further stated that, pursuant to and under authority of the Ordinance, the answering defendants had entered into a contract with defendants Charles and Hyman Spitcaufsky to remove the buildings in plaintiff's petition described 'for the reason that said buildings constituted an immediate hazard dangerous to life, limb and property and were in danger of immediate collapse.' Defendants Charles and Hyman Spitcaufsky also filed answer in which they stated that 'in accordance with law they entered upon the premises * * * to raze the buildings thereon so as to make them safe for the public using the streets, sidewalks and public alleys adjacent thereto.' By reply to the separate answer of defendants city, Lang and McKinley, plaintiff stated that the Ordinance set out in the answer 'is unconstitutional and void, and has no legal binding force or effect of any kind or nature whatsoever.'
After defendant City of Kansas City had been made a party defendant, plaintiff filed motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff also filed an amended petition alleging that defendants (other than the Spitcaufskys), conspiring among themselves, and with each other, 'to obtain possession of all the above described property, * * * to demolish the aforesaid buildings and improvements, to remove the same from the above described real estate; and, without regard for, and in violation of, his rights in the premises, and contrary to the Constitution of the State of Missouri, as well as the Constitution of the United States of America, to confiscate all the above described property, and to deprive him of his ownership thereof, * * * and without due process of law, thereupon, in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and to accomplish the objects and purposes thereof, wrongfully and unlawfully, willfully, wantonly and maliciously, induced the defendants, Charles and Hyman Spitcaufsky * * * to immediately, and forcibly, enter upon * * * to raze and destory the aforesaid buildings * * * and to convert the same (as well as all the personal property stored therein) to their own exclusive use and benefit * * *.' The answers theretofore filed were refiled in answer to plaintiff's amended petition.
Upon trial, evidence was heard and the trial court found the issues in favor of plaintiff and against defendants (except defendants Lang and McKinley, who were discharged with their costs), and awarded plaintiff $2,000 actual and $1,000 punitive damages.
Defendants pleaded Section 302(d) of the Ordinance, quoted supra, as a defense to plaintiff's action, and it is true that plaintiff in his petition had alleged defendants were conspiring to deprive him of his property and to convert...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Baker
...City of St. Louis v. Butler Co., 358 Mo. 1221, 219 S.W.2d 372.' Ingle v. City of Fulton, Mo., 260 S.W.2d 666, 667(1); Cirese v. Spitcaufsky, Mo., 259 S.W.2d 836, 838(1). A constitutional question is not raised by general averments and statements of legal conclusions [State ex rel. Barnett v......
-
Deacon v. City of Ladue
...the point must be presented in the motion for new trial, if any; and it must be adequately covered in the briefs. Cirese v. Spitcaufsky, Mo., 259 S.W.2d 836; Ingle v. City of Fulton, Mo.Sup., 260 S.W.2d 666; City of St. Louis v. Butler Co., 358 Mo. 1221, 219 S.W.2d 372; State ex rel. Kirks ......
-
Ragan v. Ragan
...State ex rel. Barnett v. Sappington, Mo., 260 S.W.2d 669, 671(6); Ingle v. City of Fulton, Mo., 260 S.W.2d 666, 667(1); Cirese v. Spiteaufsky, Mo., 259 S.W.2d 836, 838(1); State ex rel. Kirks v. Allen, Mo., 250 S.W.2d 348, 350; City of St. Louis v. Butler Co., 358 Mo., 1221, 219 S.W.2d 372,......
-
W. M. Crysler Co. v. Smith
...provision which he claims has been violated, and he must adequately cover the constitutional points in his brief. Cirese v. Spitcaufsky, Mo., 259 S.W.2d 836, 838; City of St. Louis v. Butler Co. supra, 358 Mo. at 1227, 219 S.W.2d at 376[5, 6]; Baker v. Baker, Mo.App., 274 S.W.2d 322, 325[5-......