City of St. Louis v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtWalker
Citation211 S.W. 671,278 Mo. 205
PartiesCITY OF ST. LOUIS v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO.
Decision Date28 March 1919
211 S.W. 671
278 Mo. 205
CITY OF ST. LOUIS
v.
MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
March 28, 1919.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Leo S. Rassieur, Judge.

Action by the City of St. Louis against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

James F. Green and H. H. Larimore, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Charles H. Daues, H. A. Hamilton, and G. Wm. Senn, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

WALKER, J.


The nature of the action here sought to be reviewed was the condemnation of certain private property for public use, in the city of St. Louis, including a lot or parcel of land owned by defendant. From a judgment of condemnation, and the assessment of benefits against the defendant, the latter appeals.

The board of aldermen of the city of St. Louis, in conformity with section 1 of article 21 of the charter of that city, provided by ordinance for the appropriation for public use of the property in question. In furtherance of this ordinance, and as required by the section of the charter cited, a petition was filed by the city counselor in the circuit court of said city, containing the essential allegations of a pleading of this character.

No question is involved as to the formal sufficiency of the petition, or that the requirements of the charter were not complied with. While many matters were urged by the defendant in its exceptions to the report of the commissioners authorized to be appointed in a proceeding of this nature, and its motion for a new trial, defendant's contentions in its brief and in the oral argument, are limited to a narrow compass: First, as to the invalidity of sections 1 to 8, inclusive, of article 21 of the charter of the city of St. Louis, as in violation of section. 1, art. 14, of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, concerning due process of law; and, second, that the commissioners, in assessing the benefits, unjustly discriminated against the defendant, and thus further violated the section of the Constitution cited.

I. There is no formal assignment of

211 S.W. 672

errors. Construing defendant's "Points and Authorities" as such, as we are authorized to do, our review is limited as therein indicated. Crecelius v. Railroad, 274 Mo. 671, 205 S. W. loc. cit. 186; Glasse v. King, 105 S. W. (App.) 521; Valdick v. Valdick, 264 Mo. loc. cit. 532, 175 S. W. 199; Brown v. Cheney, 256 Mo. loc. cit. 225, 165 S. W. 335; Ranch v. Wickwire, 255 Mo. loc. cit. 56, 164 S. W. 460; Buttron v. Bridell, 228 Mo. loc. cit. 635, 129 S. W. 12; Redmond Railroad, 225 Mo. loc. cit. 741, 126 S. W. 159; Collier v. Katherine Lead Co., 208 Mo. loc. cit. 258, 106 S. W. 971.

II. Defendant contends that the law, organic and statutory, of the city of St. Louis, prescribes no notice of the fixing of the boundaries of the taxing district which would enable defendant to be heard as to Whether its property should be included therein. The city charter (section 1, art. 21) provides, as preliminary to the condemnation of private property for public use, that an ordinance shall be passed. While it does not specifically prescribe, as an essential to the regularity of the proceeding, that such an ordinance shall define the limits of the taxing district, the very nature of the proceeding renders it necessary to the effective operation of such an ordinance that the property sought to be affected be described therein. As a consequence of a description of the property, the boundaries of the district are necessarily defined. An ordinance lacking this requisite would be a mere nullity, and furnish no basis for further action; containing, as it does, a description of the property and of the boundaries of the district, it renders the owners of same as fully cognizant of the proceedings as if a requirement as to notice had been in set terms incorporated in the municipal law. Of the tenor of all ordinances, the citizens of the municipality must take cognizance. Moore Mfg. Co. v. Railroad, 256...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...172 U.S. 269; Embree v. Road District, 240 U.S. 242; Jones v. Yore, 142 Mo. 38; Asphalt Co. v. Ridge, 169 Mo. 376; St. Louis v. Railways, 211 S.W. 671; State ex inf. v. Colbert, 273 Mo. 198; State ex rel. Inv. Co. v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1. (a) Section 2 of the act provides what the petition f......
  • State ex rel. Becker v. Wellston Sewer Dist., No. 31656.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 21, 1933
    ...organized. Sec. 30, Art. II, Const. of Mo.; Due Process of Law, Lucius Polk McGehee, ch. 1, p. 1; St. Louis v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 278 Mo. 205, 211 S.W. 671; Munden v. Harris, 153 Mo. App. 652; Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wallbrink, 275 Mo. 239; McAllester v. Prichard, 287 Mo. 494; State v. Jul......
  • State ex rel. McKittrick v. Bair, No. 33115.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1933
    ...Mo. Constitution: Sec. 1, Amend. 14 U.S. Constitution; Due Process of Law, Lucius Polk McGhee, ch. 1, p. 1; St. Louis v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 278 Mo. 205, 211 S.W. 671; Junden v. Harris, 153 Mo. App. 652; Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wailbrink, 275 Mo. 239; McAllester v. Prichard, 287 Mo. 494; St......
  • Crabtree v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 34871.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 17, 1937
    ...default is a denial of due process, in violation of both the State and Federal Constitutions. St. Louis v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 278 Mo. 211, 211 S.W. 671; Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Ridge, 169 Mo. 384, 68 S.W. 1043; Ex parte Nelson, 251 Mo. 106, 157 S.W. 794; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 38......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis, No. 28264.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 17, 1928
    ...172 U.S. 269; Embree v. Road District, 240 U.S. 242; Jones v. Yore, 142 Mo. 38; Asphalt Co. v. Ridge, 169 Mo. 376; St. Louis v. Railways, 211 S.W. 671; State ex inf. v. Colbert, 273 Mo. 198; State ex rel. Inv. Co. v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1. (a) Section 2 of the act provides what the petition f......
  • State ex rel. Becker v. Wellston Sewer Dist., No. 31656.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 21, 1933
    ...organized. Sec. 30, Art. II, Const. of Mo.; Due Process of Law, Lucius Polk McGehee, ch. 1, p. 1; St. Louis v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 278 Mo. 205, 211 S.W. 671; Munden v. Harris, 153 Mo. App. 652; Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wallbrink, 275 Mo. 239; McAllester v. Prichard, 287 Mo. 494; State v. Jul......
  • State ex rel. McKittrick v. Bair, No. 33115.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1933
    ...Mo. Constitution: Sec. 1, Amend. 14 U.S. Constitution; Due Process of Law, Lucius Polk McGhee, ch. 1, p. 1; St. Louis v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 278 Mo. 205, 211 S.W. 671; Junden v. Harris, 153 Mo. App. 652; Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. v. Wailbrink, 275 Mo. 239; McAllester v. Prichard, 287 Mo. 494; St......
  • Crabtree v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 34871.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 17, 1937
    ...default is a denial of due process, in violation of both the State and Federal Constitutions. St. Louis v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 278 Mo. 211, 211 S.W. 671; Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Ridge, 169 Mo. 384, 68 S.W. 1043; Ex parte Nelson, 251 Mo. 106, 157 S.W. 794; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 38......
  • 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