City of Springfield v. Smith
Decision Date | 04 May 1897 |
Citation | 138 Mo. 645,40 S.W. 757 |
Parties | CITY OF SPRINGFIELD v. SMITH. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Stewart, Cunningham & Eliot, for appellant. T. B. Love, Len Walker, and T. W. Silvers, for respondent.
The plaintiff is a city of the third class, with express power, by ordinance, to grant the right to any person or corporation to make and construct street railroads in any street in said city, and to regulate and control the use thereof (Rev. St. 1889, § 1576); to levy and collect a license tax on "street-railroad cars" operated by any corporation (Id. § 1506); and to levy and collect taxes for general revenue purposes on all mixed, personal, and real property within the limits of the city taxable according to the laws of the state (Id. § 1495). The defendant is the general manager and secretary of the Metropolitan Street-Railway Company, which by assignment succeeded to all the rights, privileges, and franchises granted by the city to the Citizens' Railway Company and the Woodland Heights Rapid-Transit & Improvement Company, and, under the direction and management of the defendant, was operating its street cars in said city at the time the complaint herein was filed, without license, as required by the ordinance of said city approved April 5, 1892 (chapter 15, art. 1, Rev. Ord. 1892), section 7 of which provides, inter alia, that — and section 21 of which imposes a fine of not less than $5 nor more than $100 for the violation of the requirements of section 7. The defendant was arrested upon a complaint for the violation of this ordinance, and fined $100 in the recorder's court, from which he appealed to the Greene county criminal court, where, upon a trial de novo, he was again found guilty, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $50; from the judgment of which court he appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals, by which court the cause was transferred to this court, on the ground "that the questions arising for decision involve the construction of certain provisions of the constitution of this state." The only defense made to the action is a claim of exemption by the Metropolitan Street-Railway Company from the operation of this ordinance by reason of the acceptance by it, and its assignors, of two prior ordinances of the city (approved October 3, 1889), the conditions of which have been duly performed by them. These ordinances were of like tenor and effect, one relating to the Citizens' Street-Railway Company and the other to the said Transit & Improvement Company. The former is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of St. Louis v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
... ... 174 S.W. 87 ... involved was as to the validity of a city ordinance regulating street railways ... In Ft. Smith L. & Tr. Co. v. Ft. Smith (D. C.) 202 Fed. 581, a suit was brought to enjoin the enforcement of a city ordinance fixing the maximum price for natural ... "Fourth. That there was no express relinquishment of the power to levy the license tax in such ordinances (citing Springfield v. Smith, 138 Mo. 645 [40 S. W. 757, 37 L. R. A. 446, 60 Am. St. Rep. 569]; `Wyandotte v. Corrigan, 35 Kan. 21 [10 Pac. 99]; State ex rel. v ... ...
-
Laclede Power & Light Co. v. City of St. Louis, 38116.
... ... Memphis Gas Light Co. v. Taxing Dist., 109 U.S. 398, 27 L. Ed. 976; St. Louis v. United Rys. Co., 210 U.S. 266, 52 L. Ed. 1054; Springfield v. Smith, 138 Mo. 645, 40 S.W. 757. (2) Ordinance 41572 does not violate the Constitution or the laws of Missouri. Neither the Constitution nor the ... ...
-
In re Holman
... ... under authority of the Board of Aldermen of the city of St ... Louis (a copy of which warrant is attached to the petition), ... avers that in and by ... McGannon, 138 Mo. 38, 46; Kansas City ... v. Richardson, 19 Mo.App. 450, 458-9; Springfield v ... Smith, 138 Mo. 645; Adams Express Co. v. Ohio, ... 165 U.S. 194; S. C. 166 U.S. 185; ... ...
-
Union Elec. Co. v. City of St. Charles
... ... Mo. 1941, pp. 698, 713). Art. 24, Chap. 74, R.S. 1939, as ... amended by Laws 1941, p. 698; State ex rel. Mo. Portland ... Cement Co. v. Smith, 338 Mo. 409, 90 S.W.2d 405; ... Ploch v. St. Louis, 345 Mo. 1069, 138 S.W.2d 1020 ... (6) The ordinance in question is void because the ... 159; Cole v ... Skrainka, 105 Mo. 303; St. Joseph v. Ernst, 95 ... Mo. 360; City of Troy v. Harris, 102 Mo.App. 51; ... Springfield v. Smith, 138 Mo. 645. (2) Ordinance No ... 1787 of the City of St. Charles is not violative of the ... Sales Tax Act. Ploch v. St. Louis, 136 ... ...