City of St. Louis v. Dreisoerner

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtBond
Citation147 S.W. 998
Decision Date31 May 1912
PartiesCITY OF ST. LOUIS v. DREISOERNER.
147 S.W. 998
CITY OF ST. LOUIS
v.
DREISOERNER.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
May 31, 1912.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 59)—POWERS—"ESSENTIAL."

A municipal corporation only possesses the powers granted to it in its charter in express words, those necessarily implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted, and those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation, using the word "essential" in the sense of indispensable, and not merely convenient.

2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 111)—ORDINANCES—SCOPE.

In the exercise of its powers, a municipal corporation can enact no ordinance which violates the Constitution of the state or the United States, or which contravenes the statutes and decisions of the state.

3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 605)—ORDINANCES—NUISANCES.

A municipal corporation has no power to declare by ordinance that to be a nuisance which is not so in fact, or to suppress, in part or in toto, any business within its limits which is not a nuisance per se.

4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 611)—ORDINANCES — BUSINESS—PROHIBITION—REGULATION.

St. Louis City Ordinance November 19, 1907, in so far as it prohibits the maintenance and operation, without permission evidenced by a proper ordinance, of a manufacturing plant using machinery operated by steam, electricity, gas, or other motive power within 600 feet of Tower Grove Park in such city, is invalid as beyond the power of the city, in that it refers to a calling which is not a nuisance per se, and therefore unsustainable, either under the general welfare clause of the city's charter, or as a police regulation.

5. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 611)—POLICE POWER—SCOPE.

The police power of a municipal corporation does not authorize the confiscation of private property for æsthetic purposes, but extends only to the regulation of employments prejudicial to the public safety, health, morals, and good government of the citizenry, and ends where those public interests are not beneficially served thereby.

6. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 625)—ORDINANCES—REASONABLENESS.

A city ordinance, prohibiting the operation of any manufacturing establishment by steam, electricity, gas, or other motive power within 600 feet of a city park, was invalid for unreasonableness.

7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (§ 295)—EMINENT DOMAIN (§ 2*)—DUE PROCESS OF LAW— DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPENSATION.

Where defendant erected a building within 600 feet of a park in St. Louis, in which he operated a plant to manufacture altars, chancels, and carved wood for churches, etc., by means of electric power, an ordinance, prohibiting the operation of any manufacturing plant wherein machinery of any kind should be maintained and operated by steam, electricity, gas, or other motive power, was invalid, as depriving defendant of his property without compensation and without due process of law.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction; Wilson Taylor, Judge.

Proceeding by the City of St. Louis against Henry Dreisoerner for violating a city ordinance. From a judgment finding defendant guilty and assessing a fine, he appeals. Reversed.

Defendant is the owner of a 2½-story brick building on Arsenal street, within 600 feet of Tower Grove Park, in the city of St. Louis. The building was erected under a permit issued by the building commissioner on October 29, 1907. The testimony tends to show that, subsequent to the ordinance hereinafter referred to, it was used by defendant for making altars, chancels, and carved wood, such as are used in churches; that the material of which these articles were constructed was prepared at planing mills and delivered at the residence of defendant; that he maintained there three saws, propelled by an electric motor, which were used in adapting the material for the purposes had in view; that he employed on an average of six men to assist in this work, which was conducted and carried on after the adoption of an ordinance enacted

[147 S.W. 999]

by the municipal assembly of the city of St. Louis on the 19th of November, 1907, to wit:

"Be it ordained by the municipal assembly of the city of St. Louis, as follows:

"Section 1. Hereafter it shall not be lawful for any person, company of persons, firm or corporation, to operate, conduct or carry on a stone quarry, or brick kiln, or soap...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • State v. Christopher, No. 27909.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 11, 1927
    ...Mo. loc. cit. 485, 41 S. W. 1094, 46 S. W. 976, 42 L. R. A. 686, 68 Am. St. Rep. 575, St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. loc. cit. 223, 147 S. W. 998, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 177, no longer state sound law. Thus in the last case a pertinent ruling on the police power is well stated thus: "The po......
  • State ex rel. Leake v. Harris, No. 32730.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 3, 1934
    ...cause of action within its charter powers. R.S. 1919, sec. 8704 (now Sec. 7289, R.S. 1929); City of St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 222, 147 S.W. 998; City of St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 595, 84 S.W. 914; Woods v. City of Kansas City, 162 Mo. 303, 62 S.W. 433; City of St. Louis v. Klausme......
  • Kansas City v. Threshing Machine Co., No. 31452.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 18, 1935
    ...and against the city; (a) "may" is to be construed as "shall;" (b) other modes of grading the tax are excluded. St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 147 S.W. 998, 243 Mo. 217; Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182, 43 Sup. Ct. 537, 196 U.S. 549, 25 Sup. Ct. 329; 36 Cyc. 1160; 39 C.J. 1393, sec. 4; Stein......
  • Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. St. Louis., No. 34280.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 21, 1937
    ...Kansas City v. Case Threshing Machine Co., 87 S.W. (2d) 198; Taylor v. Dimmitt, 78 S.W. (2d) 841; St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217, 147 S.W. 998; St. Louis v. Atlantic Quarry & Con. Co., 244 Mo. 479; St. Louis v. Kaime, 180 Mo. 322, 78 S.W. 140; St. Louis v. King, 226 Mo. 334, 126 S.W.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • State v. Christopher, No. 27909.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 11, 1927
    ...Mo. loc. cit. 485, 41 S. W. 1094, 46 S. W. 976, 42 L. R. A. 686, 68 Am. St. Rep. 575, St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. loc. cit. 223, 147 S. W. 998, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 177, no longer state sound law. Thus in the last case a pertinent ruling on the police power is well stated thus: "The po......
  • State ex rel. Leake v. Harris, No. 32730.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 3, 1934
    ...cause of action within its charter powers. R.S. 1919, sec. 8704 (now Sec. 7289, R.S. 1929); City of St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 222, 147 S.W. 998; City of St. Louis v. Meyer, 185 Mo. 595, 84 S.W. 914; Woods v. City of Kansas City, 162 Mo. 303, 62 S.W. 433; City of St. Louis v. Klausme......
  • Kansas City v. Threshing Machine Co., No. 31452.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 18, 1935
    ...and against the city; (a) "may" is to be construed as "shall;" (b) other modes of grading the tax are excluded. St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 147 S.W. 998, 243 Mo. 217; Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182, 43 Sup. Ct. 537, 196 U.S. 549, 25 Sup. Ct. 329; 36 Cyc. 1160; 39 C.J. 1393, sec. 4; Stein......
  • Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. St. Louis., No. 34280.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 21, 1937
    ...Kansas City v. Case Threshing Machine Co., 87 S.W. (2d) 198; Taylor v. Dimmitt, 78 S.W. (2d) 841; St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217, 147 S.W. 998; St. Louis v. Atlantic Quarry & Con. Co., 244 Mo. 479; St. Louis v. Kaime, 180 Mo. 322, 78 S.W. 140; St. Louis v. King, 226 Mo. 334, 126 S.W.......
  • 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