City of St. Louis v. Meier

• Decision Date: 31 October 1882
• Citation: 77 Mo. 13
• Parties: THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. MEIER, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

77 Mo. 13

THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS

v.MEIER, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1882.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

REVERSED.

A. M. Gardner for appellant.

1. The duty of the commissioners, under the charter (art. 6, § 2), was to ascertain the actual value of the land taken, the damages done to the property, and for the payment of such values and damages to assess against the city the general benefits, and the balance against the owners of all property which should be specially benefited by the proposed improvement. Neither the ordinance nor the proceedings under it, in any way seek to appropriate the Kingsland tract, nor are the owners of that tract noticed or are in any way made parties to these proceedings. We submit that the commissioners, in considering the value of this tract exceeded their authority. The ordinance did not seek to establish or open Ninth street over or through the Kingsland tract, and hence the only jurisdiction the commissioners could have was to assess benefits against it in case they found it specially benefited by the proposed improvement; and yet admitting that the Kingsland tract was benefited, they assume to balance these benefits by the supposed damages, a matter over which they had no jurisdiction whatever. In other words, these commissioners assumed to construe the Kingsland deed--to pass upon the validity of the proposed dedication, and to accept the verbal statement of the Kingslands' attorney that they would not object to the opening of the street in question, provided they, the Kingslands, were not assessed with benefits. All of which was clearly irregular and illegal. The effect of it was to exempt this property and thereby compel the property owners north and south, including these defendants, to pay a greater tax than they would had the assessment been equalized over all the property benefited.

2. The commissioners had no right to pass upon the validity, purpose and motive of the conveyance to E. D. Meier. They should have accepted the facts as shown to exist, made their report in accordance therewith and left the question of ownership, the validity of the title, and the effect of the conveyance upon these proceedings to be determined by the court.

3. The act of the city in instituting these proceedings was not an acceptance of the Kingsland dedication. Cass Co. Supervisors v. Banks, 44 Mich. 467.

4. Had the condition in the deed of dedication been that the lot owners in said Kingslands' subdivision should be exempt from the assessment of benefits in the opening of Ninth street, which was the practical effect the commissioners assumed to give it, such a dedication would have been without force, even if accepted by the city. It would be in the nature of a private agreement between the city and the Kingslands, binding neither the defendants in this case nor any other property owner affected by the opening of the street. Tyler v. St. Louis, 56 Mo. 60.

5. The dedication not being absolute when the present charter took effect, became a nullity because it does not conform to section 1, article 1 of the charter.

6. The appearance of the Kingslands before the commissioners with their verbal offer to confirm the dedication made by their ancestor, provided their land was not assessed with benefits, could not in any way affect the condition of the deed or the status of the parties to these proceedings, and should have been entirely disregarded by the commissioners.

Leverett Bell and James E. Withrow for respondent.

Leroy Kingsland dedicated Ninth street substantially on this condition: that it should be opened to the next street north and south without expense to him or his grantees. By not making the Kingslands parties to this proceeding the city has elected to accept that dedication, and exempt them from benefits inasmuch as they have contributed their full share to this improvement. Rector v. Hartt, 8 Mo. 448; Becker v. St. Charles, 37 Mo. 18; Rutherford v. Taylor, 38 Mo. 315; Dillon on Munic. Corp., § 505. The city having accepted the dedication in full compliance with the terms upon which it was made, the commissioners could not have made a valid assessment of benefits against the Kingslands. The Kingsland dedication takes effect the moment that Ninth street is dedicated or opened from Bremen avenue to Angelica street without expense to him or his grantees. 37 Mo. 13; 38 Mo. 315. The pretended sale of this property by Adolphus Meier to his son E. D. Meier, pending the proceedings, was a sham, and was, therefore, properly ignored by the commissioners. The rule is well settled that “Every person purchasing an interest in an estate during the pendency of a suit affecting the title to the same, is bound by the judgment in such suit, without being made a party to the same.” Washb. on Real Prop., (3 Ed.) p. 229, § 8; Story Eq., §§ 405, 407.

HOUGH, C. J.

This is a proceeding instituted in the circuit court of St. Louis on the 14th day of February, 1878, to open Ninth street in said city. At the time of the institution of this proceeding, Ninth street was...