City of St. Louis v. Senter Commission Co.

• Decision Date: 30 December 1930
• Docket Number: No. 8460.,8460.
• Citation: 3 F. Supp. 308
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. SENTER COMMISSION CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

3 F. Supp. 308

CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. SENTER COMMISSION CO. et al.

No. 8460.

District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.

December 30, 1930.

Julius F. Muench, G. Wm. Senn, and J. B. Steiner, all of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

Homer Hall, of St. Louis, Mo., for defendants.

DAVIS, District Judge.

The matter now before the court arises out of a condemnation suit filed by the city of St. Louis on November 16, 1922, as authorized by Ordinance No. 31656, approved April 18, 1922, which was amended by Ordinance No. 35582, approved January 26, 1927. These ordinances provided in a general way for the widening of Market street from 3rd street westward along Walnut street to 6th street, thence northward to Market street, thence westward along Market street to Vandeventer avenue. The total length of the street widening was something like 3 miles. Market street was by these ordinances to be widened from 60 feet, its present width, to 100 feet. The street throughout its entire length was compactly built up by business property in the main, but to some extent, toward the western end of the improvement, by residences. The proposed improvement extends from the downtown district of St. Louis westwardly immediately in front of the Union Station.

The condemnation suit for this improvement was filed in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, and on October 29, 1923, commissioners were appointed to assess the damages and benefits in connection with said street widening. The usual notices required by the city charter were issued and the commissioners proceeded in accordance with the charter and ordinances of the city. The commissioners completed their task and filed their report covering damages and benefits on November 20, 1928. The Wabash Railway Company on December 10, 1928, and on December 20, 1928, filed exceptions to approximately eighty-two items of the report. Each of these items have reference to a particular parcel of real property on which the commissioners had assessed benefits. None of the property of the railway company was taken by this improvement, and, consequently, no award of damages was made to this exceptor.

On petition filed by the Wabash Railway Company the condemnation suit was, so far as it affected the Wabash Railway Company, removed to this court. This action was based upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioners of Road Improvement District v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, 257 U. S. 547, 42 S. Ct. 250, 66 L. Ed. 364.

On December 17, 1930, the case came on for hearing in this court and approximately three days were spent in the taking of testimony. The evidence consisted of the ordinance and charter provision, numerous maps, charts, and photographs showing the location, extent, and nature of the proposed improvement, the testimony of several witnesses who described the location and present use of the various pieces of property alleged to have been affected by the widening of Market street; in addition to the foregoing, each side introduced the testimony of real estate operators who expressed their opinion as to whether or not the proposed improvement benefited the various parcels of real estate of the exceptor, and the extent and value of that benefit. The court is thus confronted with the testimony of experts on the one side who find that the improvement has conferred a substantial benefit on each, if not all, of the parcels of property concerning which exceptions are pending; and on the other side with experts who find no benefit resulting to any of the parcels of property. Some of the experts offered by the exceptor did testify that on some of the various parcels the value had become enhanced by reason of the proposed widening of Market street. From this conflicting testimony the court has considered each of the exceptions filed herein.

The report of the commissioners was introduced in evidence, but the court has not attached probative value to the finding of the commissioners, but has treated the case as a proceeding before the court in the first instance. In other words, the hearing has been considered as a trial de novo, which, as we understand it, is in accordance with the view of the Supreme Court of Missouri in such cases. City of St. Louis v. Schopp et al., 325 Mo. 480, 30 S.W.(2d) 733.

The charter of the city of St. Louis, article 21, section 7, provides that the court upon hearing exceptions to the report of commissioners may order a new assessment by commissioners, or it may itself assess benefits anew. The course herein taken has been for the court to reassess the benefits where exceptions have been...