City of St. Louis v. Excelsior Brewing Co.

• Decision Date: 04 February 1889
• Citation: 10 S.W. 477,96 Mo. 677
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. EXCELSIOR BREWING CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

10 S.W. 477

96 Mo. 677

CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. EXCELSIOR BREWING CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 4, 1889.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT — ASSESSMENTS — CONCLUSIVENESS.

The charter and ordinances of the city of St. Louis, relating to opening, etc., streets, provide for notice to the property owners of the time and place of making an assessment for benefits by the commissioners, and gives them the right to a hearing before the commissioners, and before the circuit court, on exceptions. Held, that in a suit on a tax-bill for the amount of an assessment for benefits derived from widening a street, the report of the commissioners is conclusive on the question of whether the property assessed is benefited, and as to the extent of such benefit. Following City of St. Louis v. Rankin, 9 S. W Rep. 910.

2. SAME — COMMISSIONERS' REPORT.

Instructions given at the request of the city, based on the erroneous supposition that the jury can fix and assess the benefits, do not, as against the city, cure the error in an instruction to disregard the report.

3. APPEAL — REVIEW — OBJECTIONS NOT MADE BELOW.

Exceptions to the introduction of evidence, not made a ground of complaint in the motion for new trial, cannot be considered on appeal.

RAY, C. J., dissents.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; DANIEL DILLON, Judge.

L. Bell and T. H. Culver, for appellant. G. M. Stewart, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit on a special tax-bill issued by the comptroller of the city of St. Louis, because of benefits assessed against defendant's property by commissioners appointed in a proceeding in the St. Louis circuit court to condemn property for the purpose of widening Eighteenth street from Clark avenue northwardly for a distance of about 191 feet. The commissioners assessed the benefits at $1,093, and the tax-bill is for that amount. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, but it is for $300 only, and the plaintiff appealed.

Some exceptions were taken by the plaintiff to the introduction of evidence by the defendant, but, since these rulings are not made a ground of complaint in the motion for a new trial, we cannot consider them here.

The court, by the second instruction given at the request of defendant, told the jury that, in making up the amount of their verdict, they should disregard the report of the commissioners made in the suit to condemn property for widening Eighteenth street. In this the court erred. The questions...