City of St. Louis v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, No. 17254.

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWalker
Citation174 S.W. 78,263 Mo. 387
PartiesCITY OF ST. LOUIS v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS.
Docket NumberNo. 17254.
Decision Date19 December 1914
174 S.W. 78
263 Mo. 387
CITY OF ST. LOUIS
v.
UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS.
No. 17254.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
December 19, 1914.
Rehearing Denied January 25, 1915.

[174 S.W. 79]

Graves, Bond, and Faris, 1'3., dissenting.

In Banc. Appeal from St. Louis, Circuit Court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.

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.

WALKER, J.


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:

"Ordinance No. 21087.

"An ordinance to amend sections 2134, 2135, 2136 and 2137 of the `Municipal Code of St. Louis' by striking out said sections and inserting certain new sections therefor, and the enactment of certain new sections to be known as 2135a, 2135b, 2135c, and 2137a, all relating to street railway companies and the licensing thereof, and providing for reports of passengers carried on cars, equipment of cars with registers, appointment of inspectors and for ways and means to enforce payment of said license, and providing a penalty for the non-payment thereof.

"Section I. Sections 2134, 2135, 2136 and 2137 of the `Municipal Code of St. Louis,' are hereby amended by striking out sections and inserting in lieu thereof new sections; and other certain new sections are hereby enacted to be known as sections 2135a, 2135b 2135c and 2137a of the `Municipal Code of St. Louis,' all as follows:

"Sec. 2134. Every person, co-partnership, association, corporation or company engaged in the business of transporting passengers from one point to another within the city, for hire, on street railways, shall pay a license to said city.

"Sec. 2135. All persons, co-partnerships, associations, corporations and companies embraced in the foregoing section shall pay the license collector a quarter-annual license for each and every car used by them in transporting passengers, payable on the 16th day of April, July, October and January of each year, for the preceding period of the three months ending respectively on the 1st day of the preceding March, June, September and December, the amount of which quarterly license on each such car shall be determined at a sum equal to one mill for every revenue or pay passenger carried on such car during the said preceding period of three months, ending as aforesaid.

"Sec. 2135a. On and after January first, 1903, every person who, and every corporation, company or association, which is required to pay a

174 S.W. 80

street car license, shall provide for, and equip each car used by it for transportation or carrying passengers, with a suitable register or indicator, capable of registering passengers to a number of not less than 9,999, and upon which shall be registered, rung up or indicated in continuous numerical succession the number of passengers who have paid for transportation on such car; and the conductor or person collecting the fare shall ring up or register each passenger as the fare is collected.

"After said time above stated, every such person. corporation, company or association shall each day furnish the register of the city of St. Louis with a report or table showing the number of pay or revenue passengers transported on each respective car operated by it on the preceding day, each such car to be identified by its number; said report or table shall also show the number or figures shown on the passenger register or indicator at the time each such car started on its first trip for the day covered by said report, to be designated as beginning number; and also number or figures shown on the said passenger register or indicator when said car was discontinued from carrying passengers on said day, which shall be designated as closing number.

"The report or table for a day preceding a legal holiday or Sunday shall be furnished on the first secular day thereafter.

"If the furnishing of the table or report on the day provided for in this section becomes impossible by reason of circumstances beyond the control of the person or company required to furnish the same, then it shall be furnished as soon thereafter as possible.

"Sec. 2135b. The comptroller of the city of St. Louis, or he, acting through his authorized deputies, shall be, and hereby is, authorized to investigate the correctness and accuracy of the returns or reports required in the preceding section numbered 2135a, and for that purpose shall have access at all reasonable times to the registers, books, documents and reports bearing on the same, of any person, company or association required to make such report or table; and may appoint temporary inspectors, not exceeding six, to make note of, check up and verify the figures and numbers shown by the passenger registers or indicators in the street cars, and assist in a proper investigation, whenever he so desires; said inspectors shall receive for their services a compensation of three dollars per day each while employed, and shall be employed or discharged at the pleasure of said comptroller.

"Sec. 2135c. Every person, corporation, company or association refusing or neglecting to make the report provided for in section 2135a, or making any false or fraudulent report, or interfering in the performance of the duties of the comptroller, deputies or inspectors provided for in section 2135b, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be fined not less than five nor more than five hundred dollars.

"Sec. 2136. On the sixteenth day of April, July, October and January of each year the license collector shall notify all persons, companies, corporations or associations required to pay a street car license, to pay such license; and any of them refusing, failing or neglecting to pay said license within ten days after having received said notice, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500; and each day of such failure, neglect or refusal shall constitute a separate offense.

"Sec. 2137. A failure, refusal or neglect to pay such license for thirty days after the same is payable shall operate as a revocation of any existing or subsequent unpaid license such parties may have obtained to operate such street cars in this city.

"Sec. 2137a. Nothing in the preceding sections 2135, 2135a, 2135b, 2135c, 2136 and 2137 shall be construed as exempting or excusing any person, co-partnership, corporation, association or company embraced therein from the payment of any sum agreed, assumed or required to be paid by the terms of any special ordinance, or agreement or contract, nor as replacing or affecting the same in any way, nor shall said sections be construed as impairing or affecting any license heretofore obtained."

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:

"That said ordinance went into full force and effect on or about the 4th day of April, 1903, and thereafter became and now appears as sections 2257 to 2264, inclusive, of the `Revised Code of St. Louis,' approved March 19, 1907, and that the said ordinance (No. 21087) is now, and at all times herein mentioned was, in full force and effect. That by the terms of said ordinance it is provided that every person, corporation, etc., engaged in the business of transporting passengers from one point to another within the city of St. Louis for hire, on street railways, shall pay a quarter-annual license to said city on the 16th day of April, July, October, and January of each year from the preceding period of the three months ending, respectively, on the last day of the preceding March, June, September, and December, the amount of which license shall be determined at a sum equal to one mill for every pay passenger carried on street cars during the preceding period of three months, ending as aforesaid. That the defendant United Railways Company of St. Louis, during the period of three months ending March 31, 1910, transported 51,438,294 pay passengers, in the city of St. Louis, for hire on its street railway cars. That by reason of said facts, and by virtue of the terms of Ordinance No. 21087, it became and was the duty of defendant United Railways...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 practice notes
  • Washington University v. Gorman, No. 37435.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 June 1941
    ...Hudson, 85 Mo. 32; State ex rel. Blair v. Center Creek Mining Co., 264 Mo. 190, 171 S.W. 356; St. Louis v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 263 Mo. 387, 174 S.W. 78; Washington University v. Rowse, 8 Wall. 439, 19 L. Ed. 498; Washington University v. Baumann, 341 Mo. 708, 108 S.W. (2d) 403; Ex......
  • State v. Hedrick, No. 23106.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 April 1922
    ...we have in a nutshell the mischief to be remedied by the constitutional provision under consideration. In St. Louis v. United Rys. Co., 263 Mo. 387, 452, 174 S. W. 78, 93, we "But in this case, the title of the amendatory act is sufficient. It amply indicates the subject-matter of the act a......
  • Bacon v. Ranson, No. 32418.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 31 December 1932
    ...3; State v. Becker, 288 Mo. 607, 233 S.W. 54; St. Louis v. Green, 7 Mo. App. 468; St. Louis v. Green, 70 Mo. 562; St. Louis v. Railway, 263 Mo. 387, 174 S.W. 78; St. Louis v. Sternberg, 69 Mo. 289; St. Louis v. United Rys. Co., 263 Mo. 507, 174 S.W. 109; State ex rel. McCluing v. Becker, 28......
  • Wilhoit v. City of Springfield, No. 6370.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 3 May 1943
    ...to the other. It requires both powers to sustain it. City of St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 600; City of St. Louis v. United Railways, 263 Mo. 387. (b) It is manifest that the license fee is imposed for the purpose of revenue as well as regulation. City of St. Louis v. Spiegel, 75 Mo. 145; S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
71 cases
  • Washington University v. Gorman, No. 37435.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 June 1941
    ...Hudson, 85 Mo. 32; State ex rel. Blair v. Center Creek Mining Co., 264 Mo. 190, 171 S.W. 356; St. Louis v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 263 Mo. 387, 174 S.W. 78; Washington University v. Rowse, 8 Wall. 439, 19 L. Ed. 498; Washington University v. Baumann, 341 Mo. 708, 108 S.W. (2d) 403; Ex......
  • State v. Hedrick, No. 23106.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 3 April 1922
    ...we have in a nutshell the mischief to be remedied by the constitutional provision under consideration. In St. Louis v. United Rys. Co., 263 Mo. 387, 452, 174 S. W. 78, 93, we "But in this case, the title of the amendatory act is sufficient. It amply indicates the subject-matter of the act a......
  • Bacon v. Ranson, No. 32418.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 31 December 1932
    ...3; State v. Becker, 288 Mo. 607, 233 S.W. 54; St. Louis v. Green, 7 Mo. App. 468; St. Louis v. Green, 70 Mo. 562; St. Louis v. Railway, 263 Mo. 387, 174 S.W. 78; St. Louis v. Sternberg, 69 Mo. 289; St. Louis v. United Rys. Co., 263 Mo. 507, 174 S.W. 109; State ex rel. McCluing v. Becker, 28......
  • Wilhoit v. City of Springfield, No. 6370.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 3 May 1943
    ...to the other. It requires both powers to sustain it. City of St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 600; City of St. Louis v. United Railways, 263 Mo. 387. (b) It is manifest that the license fee is imposed for the purpose of revenue as well as regulation. City of St. Louis v. Spiegel, 75 Mo. 145; S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT