City of Hopkins v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1883
• Citation: 79 Mo. 98
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY OF HOPKINS v. THE KANSAS CITY, ST. JOSEPH & COUNCIL BLUFFS RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

79 Mo. 98

CITY OF HOPKINS

v.THE KANSAS CITY, ST. JOSEPH & COUNCIL BLUFFS RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1883.

Appeal from Nodaway Circuit Court.--HON. H. S. KELLEY, Judge.

REVERSED.

Strong & Mosman for appellant.

R. H. Wilfley and Johnston & Andrews for respondent.

NORTON, J.

This is a proceeding begun by the respondent for the purpose of opening and extending Barnard street in the town of Hopkins, through the depot grounds of the appellant at that point. Said depot grounds consist of a strip of land 200 feet wide, and probably 800 or 1,000 feet long, on which are situated the depot buildings and the main line and three side-tracks of the appellant's road. Said street runs from east to west, and is eighty-eight feet wide, and the respondent proposes to appropriate a strip out of said depot grounds eighty-eight feet in width by 200 feet in length, so as to extend the street across said depot grounds and over said main line and side-tracks. To that end its council passed an alleged ordinance condemning said strip, appointing commissioners to assess the damages occasioned thereby, and directing them to meet and view said ground, estimate the damage done and report in writing their award to the council. The commissioners reported that the appellant was not injured or damaged by the appropriation of said ground or the opening of said street. The common council approved the award, and the railroad company appealed to the circuit court, where, on a trial anew, the circuit court gave judgment for plaintiff and refused to allow appellant any sum as damages.

The case is before us on defendant's appeal, and the chief ground of error assigned is the action of the court in refusing the following instructions:

1. Under the pleadings and evidence in this cause, the defendant is entitled to recover in this cause such sum or sums as damages sustained by it by reason of the appropriation of its land and the opening of Barnard street by plaintiff, across its track, as the evidence shows it will be compelled to expend in constructing and maintaining road crossings over said tracks of the kind and in the manner required by the statutes.

2. There is no evidence in this cause of the incorporation of the plaintiff or that an ordinance was ever passed or approved opening Barnard street across the defendant's track, and the plaintiff has no standing in court to maintain this proceeding.

1. JUDICIAL NOTICE: incorporation of town.

We are of opinion that the court erred in refusing the second instruction. This proceeding is an attempt, on the part of plaintiff, to exercise the right of eminent domain, by taking defendant's property and appropriating it to a public use. The question as to whether plaintiff could exercise such a right at all, depends upon the fact of its being an incorporated town or city invested by the law creating it with such right and power. If plaintiff derived its being from a public law, we should be bound to take judicial notice of it and of the rights and powers it possessed. But there is no public act, so far as we have been able to discover, creating and conferring power on plaintiff. The general statute which...