City of St. Louis v. Dreisoerner

• Citation: 147 S.W. 998
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. DREISOERNER.
• Decision Date: 31 May 1912
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

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 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 factory, or candle factory, or slaughterhouse or garbage works, or bone factory, or rendering factory, or livery stable, or vitriol factory, or tannery, or sawmill, or planing mill, or furniture factory, or box factory, or boiler works, or rolling mill, or lumber yard, or scrap iron yard, or rag yard and warehouse or manufacturing plant of whatsoever size, wherein machinery of any kind whatsoever shall be maintained or operated by means of steam, electricity, gas or other motive power, in any building, or any lot of ground within six hundred feet of Tower Grove Park, without permission to do so has first been obtained from the municipal assembly by a proper ordinance; nor shall any existing house, shed or structure be used, altered, changed, removed or repaired so as to establish, conduct, open, carry on or maintain any such business or occupation within said limits without similar authority. Any person, company of persons, firm or...