City of St. Louis v. Green

• Decision Date: 31 October 1879
• Citation: City of St. Louis v. Green, 70 Mo. 562 (Mo. 1879)
• Parties: THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant, v. GREEN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

70 Mo. 562

THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant,

v.GREEN.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1879.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.The case is reported in 7 Mo. App. Rep. 468.

REVERSED.

Leverett Bell for appellant.John G. Chandler and C. C. Simmons for respondents.

NORTON, J.

This proceeding was instituted in the first district police court of St. Louis, to enforce the collection of a penalty for an alleged breach by defendants of section 1, of ordinance 10,494, in driving and causing to be driven one two-horse wagon, owned by them, over the streets of said city and for using said streets for the purposes of trade and traffic, and private purposes, without first having paid for and obtained a license so to do, as required by said ordinance.Defendants were adjudged by the police court to pay a fine of $10, from which they appealed to the circuit court, where the judgment of the police court was affirmed and defendants ordered to pay a fine of $10; from this judgment defendants appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals, where the judgment was reversed, and from this judgment plaintiff has appealed to this court.

It is insisted by defendants' counsel that the said ordinance on which the proceeding is based, is void, because:

1.The ordinance in its terms violates the constitution of the State as to uniformity of taxation.

2.The ordinance violates the charter by embracing in its title more than one subject, and especially by including therein the subject of creation of office with a subject of ordinary legislation.

3.The ordinance embraces in the body thereof at least three subjects, one of which--the regulation of public and private vehicles--is not mentioned in the title; and another--the creation of an office--is the subject of extraordinary legislation under the charter, and, therefore, not capable of being united in the same ordinance with ordinary subjects.

4.The ordinance lays a tax upon the use of the streets, if not in terms, yet by necessary implication; and this, although no power so to do has been conferred upon the city.

5.The ordinance, as in practice construed by the city officials, violates section 1, article 5 of the charter, which requires all property liable to State tax to pay an ad valorem tax for city purposes.

6.The ordinance, unless construed to exempt private venicles from general taxation, subjects mere property already taxed in the same proportion as other property to an additional tax.Whichever way it is...