City of Kansas v. Baird

• Decision Date: 18 March 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 243,98 Mo. 215
• Parties: CITY OF KANSAS v. BAIRD et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

11 S.W. 243

98 Mo. 215

CITY OF KANSAS v. BAIRD et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 18, 1889.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS — ASSESSMENTS.

1. The charter of the city of Kansas provides that in proceedings to condemn property for street

improvements the jury for the assessment of damages and benefits must consist of six householders of the city, to be selected by the judge of the circuit court; and that parties interested may submit proof to the jury, and the latter shall examine personally the property to be taken and assessed. Held, that the jury in making up their verdict are to be guided by their own judgment as to damages and benefits, as well as by such information as they get from witnesses.

2. In a proceeding by the city to condemn property for the purpose of widening and extending a public highway, it appearing that the proposed street is for public use, the question as to whether there is any present public necessity for it cannot be determined, there being nothing in the charter which makes it the duty of the trial court in such proceeding to pass upon or submit such question to the jury.

3. A refusal to instruct the jury that, if the street when opened would be impassable for travel and use, then no benefits to adjoining land should be assessed, is not error where, although the street passes over a rough and broken country, there is no evidence that the street cannot be made passable.

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; J. H. SLOVER, Judge.

Chase & Powell, F. L. Wilkinson, and Scarritt & Savitt, for appellants.

BLACK, J.

This was a proceeding by the city of Kansas to widen and extend Broadway street from Twenty-Third street south to city limits. The defendants are persons whose property was condemned by the ordinance, and persons who own property within the district over which benefits were to be assessed. There was a trial anew in the circuit court, and from the judgment of that court, confirming the verdict of the jury, two of the defendants, namely, Wilkinson and Egelhoff, appealed. The appellants are owners of property taken and of property assessed with benefits. The circuit court, in its instructions to the jury, told them that in assessing damages and benefits they had the right to and would be guided by all the evidence in the case, "as well as their own judgment." It is to the quoted words that appellants object. By the charter of the city of Kansas the jury in these cases must consist of six householders of the city, and are to be selected by the judge of the circuit court. Parties interested may submit proof to the jury, and the latter shall examine...