City of St. Louis v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Walker |
| Citation | City of St. Louis v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 263 Mo. 387, 174 S.W. 78 (Mo. 1914) |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 17254.,17254. |
| Parties | CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. UNITED RYS. CO. OF ST. LOUIS. |
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:
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free 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 ... R. A ... 747, 58 Am. St. Rep. 657; City of St. Louis v ... Sternberg, 69 Mo. l. c., 301; and City of Aurora ... l. c. 257, 161 S.W. 794; ... St. Louis v. United Rys. Co., 263 Mo. l. c. 449, 174 ... S.W. 78; Jenkins v ... ...
-
Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wollbrinck
... ... 339 ... LUDLOW-SAYLOR WIRE CO ... WOLLBRINCK, City Assessor ... No. 20788 ... Supreme Court of Missouri ... 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 ... City of St. Louis v. United Railways Co. of St. Louis, 263 Mo. 387, 174 S. W. 78; Kroger Grocerty & ... ...
-
State v. Hedrick
... ... Farris, of Rolla, and John I. Williamson, of Kansas City, for relator. John H. Lucas and Beardsley & Beardsley, all ... Louis, and return, on January 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1921, which ... of the Board of Trade of Kansas City, and of the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Markets, and ... In St. Louis v. United Rys". Co., 263 Mo. 387, 452, 174 S. W. 78, 93, we said: ... \xC2" ... ...