City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Gaslight Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1879
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. ST. LOUIS GASLIGHT COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

70 Mo. 69

CITY OF ST. LOUIS

v.ST. LOUIS GASLIGHT COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1879.

[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]

[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

The case is reported in vol. 5 Mo. App. Rep. 484.

REVERSED.

Glover & Shepley, Noble & Orrick, Wagner, Dyer & Emmons, Willard P. Hall and Broadhead, Slayback & Haeussler for appellant.

1. The contract of 1846 was not a valid contract, as construed in and by the decree, and the appellant is not estopped to deny its validity. It was ultra vircs the city as construed. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. St. Louis v. Russell, 9 Mo. 503; Blair v. Perpetual Insurance Co., 10 Mo. 560; Ruggles v. Collier, 43 Mo. 353; Matthews v. Skinker, 62 Mo. 329; H. & St. Jo. R. R. Co. v. Marion Co., 36 Mo. 303; Western S. F. S. v. Philadelphia,31 Pa St. 185; Bank of Louisville v. Young, 37 Mo. 398; Fowler v. Scully,72 Pa. St. 456; First Nat. Bank v. Nat. Bank, 92 U. S. 122; Head v. Providence Ins. Co., 2 Cranch 127. Defect of power cannot be cured by agreement. Houldsworth v. Evans, 3 House of Lords Cases 263; Ex parte Grady, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 631; Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co., 11 C. B. 775; Bank of U. S. v. Dandridge, 12 Wheat. 64; Great Eastern R. R. Co. v. Turner, L. R. Ch. App. 152. The expression of one way to act excludes power to act otherwise. Broom's Legal Maxims, (4 Ed.) p. 414; North Stafford, &c., Co. v. Wood, L. R. 3 Ex. 177; Dwarris on Stat., 655; Maguire v. State Savgs. Ins., 62 Mo. 346; Ex parte Snyder, 64 Mo. 58; U. S. v. 200 Barrels Whisky, 95 U. S. 571; Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 62; N. W. U. Pkt. Co. v. Shaw, 37 Wis. 655; N. W. & M. P. R. R. Co., 7 Wis. 59; Thompson v. Lambert, 44 Iowa 239; Thomas v. Richmond, 12 Wall. 349; City v. M. & W. Plank R. Co., 31 Ala. 76; Penn., Del., &c., Co. v. Dandridge, 8 Gill & John. 248, 319; Albert v. Bank, 1 Md. Ch. Decs. 407, 413; Smith v. Alabama, &c., Co., 4 Ala. 558; Hodges v. Buffalo, 2 Denio 110; Life, &c., Co. v. Mechanics, &c., Co., 7 Wend. 31; N. Y., &c., Co. v. Fly, 5 Conn. 560. The directors of the company could not agree to sell all its property and end its charter without the direct authority of its stockholders. Abbot v. Am. Hard Rubber Co., 33 Barb. 578; Colman v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co., 4 English Ry. Cas. 513; 10 Beav. 1; Railway Co. v. Allerton, 18 Wall. 235.

2. Specific performance of contract of 1846 cannot be enforced, because price of property is to be fixed by arbitrators. King v. Howard, 27 Mo. 21; Biddle v. Ramsey, 52 Mo. 158; Hug v. Van Burkleo, 58 Mo. 202; Street v. Rigby, 6 Ves. 815; Milnes v. Gery, 14 Ves. 400; Blundell v. Brettargh, 17 Ves. 232; Gourley v. Duke of Somerset, 19 Ves. 429; Agar v. Macklew, 2 Sim. & Stu. 418; Tobey v. County of Bristol, 3 Story 820; Morgan v. Birnie, 9 Bing. 672; Thurnell v. Balburnie, 2 M. & W. 786; Milner v. Field, 5 Ex. 829; Wilks v. Davis, 4 Merivale 507; Darbey v. Whittaker, 4 Drewry 134; Morgan v. Milman, 3 DeGex, McN. & G. 24; Norfleet v. Southall, 3 Mur. 189; Graham v. Call, 5 Munf. 396; Conner v. Drake, 1 Ohio St. 166.

3. The right of appellant to its franchise and property did not become vested in the respondent by the resolution and notice, as of the date decided, January 1st, 1870. It was necessary that the price of the property to be conveyed should have been ascertained and fixed and paid, or offered to be paid, before the title would vest in the purchaser. Klyce v. Broyles, 37 Miss. 524; Mhoon v. Wilkerson, 47 Miss. 633; Hoen v. Simmons, 1 Cal. 119; Green v. Covilland, 10 Cal. 317, 323; Goodale v. West, 5 Cal. 317, 323, 339; Marshall v. Caldwell, 41 Cal. 611; Mather v. Scoles, 35 Ind. 1; Hart v. McClellan, 41 Ala. 251; Rogers v. Taylor, 40 Iowa 193; Fall v. Hazebrigg, 45 Ind. 576; Hamilton v. St. Louis Co., 15 Mo. 3.

4. The tripartite agreement of 1873 was for a valuable consideration, as shown on its face and proven in this case, which the city has received and enjoyed. It was in compromise of disputes and such as a municipal corporation could make. 1 Dillon on Corp., 308; Petersburgh v. Mappin, 14 Ill. 193; Supervisors v. Bowen, 4 Lansing 24; Alex. Canal Co. v. Swann, 5 How. 89. It was not ultra vires the appellant. It does not exclude the appellant from any portion of the city, but surrenders merely an exclusive privilege; and this exclusive privilege was abandoned in a legal and binding manner; by consent of all stockholders; by allowing the Laclede to occupy the territory; by inducing the Laclede to build there and expend great sums in its works, and by the contract, which has been practically construed by the parties. St. Louis Gas Co. v. St. Louis, 46 Mo. 127. The exclusive right was abandoned legally and bindingly. Rundell v. Murray, Jacob 311, 316; Saunders v. Smith, 3 Mylne & C. 711, 728, 730, 735; Fremont Ferry Co. v. Dodge Co., 6 Neb. 18; s. c., 3 Law & Eq. Rep. 680; Wyeth v. Stone, 1 Story 284. It is not an attempt by appellant to avoid its public duty or abandon its franchise. 1 Redfield on Railways, p. 676, § 155, § 4; People ex rel. Green v. D. & C. R. R. Co., 58 N. Y. 155; Bowman v. Wathen, 2 McLean 376, 393; Pierce on Railways, 529; Angell & Ames on Corp., § 191; People v. Manhattan Gas Co., 45 Barb. 136; Hays v. O. & O. Ry. Co., 61 Ill. 165, 422; Black v. Delaware Co., 24 N. J. Eq. (7 C. E. Green) 455; Oakland, &c., Co. v. O., &c., Co., 45 Cal. 365; Shepard v. Milwaukee Gaslight Co., 6 Wis. 539. Nor does it give place to an unauthorized party; it reserves the right to all, itself included, to sell gas in territory north of Washington avenue, and as it abandons only its exclusive privilege, the Laclede Gaslight Company comes in by force of its own charter. Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, 311, 312, 313, 336 n; R. R. Co. v. R. R. Co., 5 McLean 450; Stanton v. Allen, 5 Denio 434. State has control. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Iowa, 94 U. S. 155.

Leverett Bell, W. B. Thompson, H. A. Clover, L. Gottschalk, Philips & Vest, Henderson & Shields for respondent.

1. The contract of 1846 was a valid contract. Express power was granted to the city and company to make such a contract. Sess. Acts 1838, p. 244, § 13. This contract did not confer upon the city the power to purchase the works; the power was granted by the charter of the company. The times provided therein for the purchase were directory only; were not essential to the exercise of the power, and could be waived or changed by agreement of the parties. Pomeroy Spec. Per., § 418; Hilliard Vend., 196, 201; Rector v. Price, 1 Mo. 373; Ewing v. Gordon, 49 N. H. 461; Snordman v. Harford, 55 Me. 197; Lee v. Tillotson, 24 Wend. 339; Baker v. Braman, 6 Hill 47; Viele v. German Ins. Co., 26 Iowa 10; Willston v. Willston, 41 Barb. 643; Benedict v. Lynch, 1 Johns. Ch. 370; Sharp v. Trimmer, 9 C. E. Green (24 N. J. Eq.) 422; Wood v. Griffith, 1 Swanton 56; Morse v. Merest, 6 Madd. Ch. 25.

2. The defendant, by the execution of the contract of 1846, and its acts under said contract, is estopped from denying its validity, and if the power of the city to purchase the gas-works shall rest upon the contract of 1846, being executed in pursuance of the charter, then the right of the city to purchase the property is ample and secure by the estoppel asserted against the defendant. Zabriskie v. Cleveland R. R. Co., 23 How. 381; Ang. & Am. on Corp., § 240; Sedgwick on Stat. & Const. Law, § 240; Cooley Const. Lim., §§ 73, 254; Rumsey v. People, 19 N. Y. 46; People v. Maynard, 15 Mich. 470; Hoyt v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 24 N. Y. S. C. Rep. 170.

3. The passage of the resolution to purchase, and the notice given defendant at the time and in the manner provided, entitled the plaintiffs to a specific performance of the contract as provided by the charter, and such relations existed by operation thereof, that either party could insist upon a full and exact performance of the contract and the execution of the law. Ogden v. Sander, 12 Wheat. 259; Keen v. Bristol,26 Pa. St. 46; Paris v. Haley, 61 Mo. 453; Fry on Spec, Perf., § 23; 1 Story Eq. Jur., §§ 780, 789; Green v. Smith, 1 Ark. 572; Huffman v. Hummer, 17 N. J. Eq. 263; King v. Buckman, 11 N. J. Eq. 599; Richter v. Selin, 8 Serg. & R. 440; Siter's Appeal,26 Pa. St. 178; Colson v. Thompson, 2 Wheat. 336; Kendall v. Amy, 2 Sumner, 278; Biddle v. Ramsey, 58 Mo. 203; Steevens Hospital v. Dyas, 15 Irish Ch 405; Gas Co. v. Wheeling, 8 W. Va. 320; Ammant v. N. A. & P. T. Co., 13 Serg. & R. 210; 9 Watts & S. 27; Winch v. Birkenhead R. R. Co., 5 DeGex & Sm. 562; 13 Eng. L. & Eq. 508; Black v. Delaware & Raritan R. R. Co., 24 N. J. Eq. (9 C. E. Green) 455; Shepard v. Milwaukee Gas Co., 6 Wis. 539; City of St. Louis v. St. Louis Gas Co., 4 Mo. App. 484, 529; Green's Drice's Ultra Vires, 305, 372. And the sale or transfer of the powers of one company to another, without the authority of the Legislature is against public policy; and the courts will do nothing to promote the transfer, as it is in utter disregard of the duties and obligations of the company. Hays v. O. O. & F. R. V. R. R. Co., 61 Ill. 422; Copeland v. Citizens Gaslight Co., 61 Barb. 76. Nor can franchises be dissevered or divided except by legislative authority. O. R. R. Co. v. O. B. & F. B. R. R. Co., 45 Cal. 365; People v. Albany & Vermont R. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 261; Thompson v. People, 23 Wend. 584. The St. Louis Gaslight Company abandoned its franchises so far as the territory conceded to the Laclede Gaslight Company was yielded by it, suspended its business therein and neglects its corporate duty there. This it could not do. Abbot v. Am. Hard Rubber Co., 20 How. Pr. 199; 21 How. Pr. 193; Conro v. Port Henry Iron Co., 12 Barb. 27; Beman v. Rufford, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 550; 6 Eng. L. & E. R. 106; Johnson v. Shrewsbury & Pa. R. R. Co., 3 DeGex, McN. & G. 914; Shrewsbury & Birm. R. R. Co. v. N. W. R. R. Co., 6 H. L. C. 113, 131; 1 Sim. 110; S. Yorkshire R. R. Co. v. Gr. N. W. R. R. Co., 3 DeGex, McN. & G. 576; Gr. Mid. R. R....