City of St. Louis v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
Decision Date | 19 December 1914 |
Docket Number | No. 17254.,17254. |
Citation | 174 S.W. 78,263 Mo. 387 |
Parties | CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Action by the City of St. Louis against the United Railways Company of St. Louis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 210 U. S. 266, 28 Sup. Ct. 630, 52 L. Ed. 1054; 220 U. S. 607, 31 Sup. Ct. 722, 55 L. Ed. 607.
H. S. Priest, of St. Louis, and Herbert S. Hadley, of Kansas City (Morton Jourdan and T. E. Francis, both of St. Louis, of counsel), for appellant. William E. Baird and Truman P. Young, both of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is one of eight cases brought by plaintiff, the city of St. Louis, against the defendant, the United Railways Company, to enforce the provisions of Ordinance No. 21087, known as the "mill tax ordinance." These cases were tried and determined in different divisions of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis; judgments being rendered in each in favor of plaintiff, from which defendant has appealed.
The ordinance in question is an amendment to an ordinance providing for a license tax of $25 on each street car used by any person or corporation in said city, and authorizes the levying of a license tax on persons or corporations operating street railways in said city of one mill for each pay passenger carried by them. This ordinance first appeared as sections 2257 to 2264, inclusive, Revised Code of St. Louis of 1907, compiled by Woerner, the accredited author of the "mill tax ordinance," which is carried into the Revised Code of St. Louis of 1912 by Rombauer as sections 2238 to 2245, inclusive, and as enacted and in force at the time of these proceedings was as follows:
I. Pleadings.
Plaintiff's petition, outlined as to matters not in question, other allegations being set forth in full, is as follows: The corporate existence and the characters as such of plaintiff and defendant, and that the latter is now, and was at all times stated in the petition, operating a street railway in the city of St. Louis, is formally pleaded. The enactment of the ordinance (No. 21087) is alleged, and the same is set forth in the petition as it appears in the foregoing copy:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson
...... 759, section 6; Express Co. v. City of St. Joseph, . 66 Mo. 675, 27 Am. Rep. 382, which was a ...R. A. 747, 58 Am. St. Rep. 657; City of St. Louis v. Sternberg, 69 Mo. l. c., 301; and City of Aurora v. ...l. c. 257, 161 S.W. 794;. St. Louis v. United Rys. Co., 263 Mo. l. c. 449, 174. S.W. 78; Jenkins v. ......
-
Cape Girardeau v. Groves Motor Co., 36862.
.... 142 S.W.2d 1040. CITY OF CAPE GIRARDEAU, a Municipal Corporation,. v. FRED A. ... Amendment 14, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States unless it is uniform in its application to members ...(2d) 73; Stegmann v. Weeke, 214 S.W. 140; St. Louis v. Theatre Co., 202 Mo. 699; City of Windsor v. Bast, 199 ...(2d) 193, 106 A.L.R. 1327; St. Louis v. United Rys. Co., 263 Mo. 387, 174 S.W. 78; Simmons Hardware Co. v. St. ......
-
Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck
......339 . LUDLOW-SAYLOR WIRE CO. . v. . WOLLBRINCK, City Assessor. . No. 20788. . Supreme Court of Missouri. In .... Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wilson A. Taylor, Judge. . ... after an amendment of the Constitution of the United States which excluded "taxes on incomes" however derived ...See St. Louis v. United Rys. Co., 263 Mo. loc. cit. 449, 174 S. W. 78. It is apparent, ......
-
Thunder Oil Co. v. City of Sunset Hills
......Jones, Harold S. Cook, Cook, Murphy, Lance & English, St. Louis, for appellants. Robert Grant Walsh, William H. Corcoran, ... City of St. Louis v. United Railways Co. of St. Louis, 263 Mo. 387, 174 S. W. 78; Kroger Grocerty & ......