City of St. Louis v. Rossi
| Decision Date | 20 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 30741.,30741. |
| Citation | 55 S.W.2d 946 |
| Parties | CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. ROSSI et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Victor H. Falkenhainer, Judge.
Proceeding in condemnation by the city of St. Louis against Simon D. Rossi and others, including Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Company. From a judgment of award to the Donk Bros. Coal & Coke Company, condemnor appeals.
Affirmed.
Julius T. Muench, G. Wm. Senn, Seward McKittrick, and John M. Hodgen, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Theodore Rassieur, Thomas Bond, and Alfred C. Wilson, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is a proceeding in condemnation brought by appellant, the city of St. Louis, under the provisions of Ordinance 30318, approved March 26, 1919, which provided for the extension of Skinker road from Delmar boulevard north and east to Hodiamont avenue. The petition was filed by appellant in the circuit court on October 24, 1919. Respondent owned a wedge-shaped tract of land, on the east side of the main line of the Wabash railroad, which it used as a coal yard for storage and distribution of coal. Hodiamont avenue, a paved street, ran along the east side of respondent's property to Olive street road, a macadamized highway, which ran along the south of respondent's property until it reached the Wabash tracks. Respondent's lot came to a point at this intersection of Hodiamont avenue with Olive street road. On respondent's land, there were four switch tracks connecting with the Wabash. Respondent also had there coal storage sheds and a brick office building. Most of its property was paved so that it could be used by wagons and trucks.
It was shown that the shape and location of respondent's property made it possible to run switch tracks directly onto it without any waste space for curves. In addition to this convenience of shape, its location at the intersection of two paved streets, which led directly to its distribution territory, made the property ideal for its coal distribution business. The surrounding territory was shown to be the best residence and apartment district in the west part of the city of St. Louis for the sale of coal, and there were no other such suitable industrial sites available in that section of the city. The plans for the junction of the extension of Skinker road with Hodiamont avenue provided for a fan-shaped entrance to Skinker road, which took all of the south part of respondent's property, something over 32,600 square feet, and left it only a circular tract, on the north part of its land, of 8,791 square feet. This tract was too small for industrial use, and was suitable only for commercial uses, such as a filling station, garage, or store.
The commissioners appointed by the court reported, on March 27, 1924, assessing benefits and damages as follows:
Value of the part taken and damage
to the remainder ................ $36,510.18
Special benefits to the remainder
parcel .......................... 879.19
And found that the respondent was
entitled to recover the excess of
damages over the benefits, to-wit $35,630.99
Respondent filed exceptions to this report, and after hearing, on December 18, 1924, respondent's exceptions were sustained, a new appraisement ordered, and different commissioners appointed. The second commissioners' report which was filed on October 25, 1926, was as follows:
The values and damages, at ......... $53,704.95
The special benefits to the part not
taken at ......................... 3,077.18
And found that the respondent was
entitled to recover the excess of
damages over the benefits
amounting to ..................... $50,627.77
Appellant excepted to the second report. A hearing was held on appellant's exceptions June 1, 1927, after which the court overruled the exceptions and entered judgment for the amount allowed by the second commissioners' report. Appellant has appealed from this judgment.
Appellant says that the court erred in sustaining respondent's exceptions to the first commissioners' report and ordering a new appraisement. Appellant does not contend that there was no substantial evidence to justify the court's action, but assigns a number of errors in connection with the admission and rejection of evidence at the trial on respondent's exceptions to that report. We hold that appellant is not entitled to have a new trial on respondent's exceptions to the first commissioners' report on those grounds. The authority of the circuit court, to set aside commissioners' reports under the provisions of the St. Louis charter, has been considered by this court on several occasions.
City of St. Louis v. Gerhart Realty Co., 328 Mo. 103, 40 S.W.(2d) 661, loc. cit. 663.
"On a mere question of value, depending on conflicting evidence, the circuit court should hesitate to interfere with the commissioners' finding, although, in a proper case, it has undoubtedly the right and duty to do so." St. Louis v. Brown, 155 Mo. 545, loc. cit. 567, 56 S. W. 298, 303.
"In a review of the commissioners' report on exceptions thereto the report itself is to be considered, and it must stand until it is shown to be wrong either in a point of law or in a matter of fact." St. Louis v. Abeln, 170 Mo. 318, loc. cit. 323, 70 S. W. 708, 709.
"If there was no substantial evidence that the commissioners' report was wrong, * * * the trial court abused its discretion in setting it aside and ordering a new assessment." City of St. Louis v. Turner (Mo. Sup.) 55 S.W.(2d) 942, decided October...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of St. Louis v. Senter Com'n Co.
...St. Louis v. Brown, 155 Mo. 567, 56 S.W. 303; St. Louis v. Rossi, 64 S.W.2d 602; St. Louis v. Abeln, 170 Mo. 323, 70 S.W. 709; St. Louis v. Rossi, 55 S.W.2d 947. J., not sitting. OPINION PER CURIAM This is a proceeding under the charter of the city of St. Louis in which appellants' property......
- City of St. Louis v. Rossi
-
St. Louis v. Turner, 30742.
... 55 S.W.2d 942 ... THE CITY" OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant, ... BERTHA C. TURNER ET AL ... No. 30742 ... Supreme Court of Missouri ... Division One, December 20, 1932 ... \xC2" ... ...
- City of St. Louis v. Turner