City of St. Louis v. Koch

• Citation: 70 S.W. 143,169 Mo. 587
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. KOCH et al.
• Decision Date: 27 October 1902
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

70 S.W. 143

169 Mo. 587

CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. KOCH et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

October 27, 1902.

EMINENT DOMAIN — PROCEEDINGS — MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — SPECIAL TAX DISTRICT — PUBLICATION — DESCRIPTION.

1. A proceeding to condemn private property for public use being a purely statutory proceeding in rem, unless it affirmatively appears on the face of the proceedings that every essential prerequisite of the statute conferring the authority has been complied with the proceedings will be void.

2. Where an ordinance required the city counselor to give five days' published notice of the establishment of a special tax district benefited by a public improvement, giving the boundaries thereof, a publication describing a district wholly included in a platted city by the numbers of the city blocks included therein was sufficient.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; H. D. Wood, Judge.

Suit by the city of St. Louis against Magdalena Koch and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant John F. Brinkmeyer appeals. Affirmed.

Lambert E. Walther, for appellant. Chas. W. Bates, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

This is a suit brought by the city of St. Louis against the defendants upon two special tax bills for benefits assessed against property formerly owned by defendant Magdalena Koch, and now owned by defendant Brinkmeyer, the appellant herein resulting from the opening of Natural Bridge road, a public highway of the city of St. Louis, from Farrar street to Twenty-First street. The petition is in the usual form, and sets forth the ordinance authorizing the improvement proceeding; the institution of the proceeding by the city counselor; the bringing in the owners of property proposed to be taken; the appointment of commissioners by the circuit court; the laying out of a benefit district by the commissioners; and the publication, by the city counselor, for five days, of a notice thereof, and of the boundaries thereof, which notice was published in the newspapers then doing the city printing. The petition thereupon alleges that the commissioners proceeded to ascertain the actual value of the land and premises proposed to be taken; the actual damages done to property thereby; and that for the payment of such values and damages they did proceed to assess against the city the amount of benefit to the public generally, and against the owners or owners of all property within the district aforesaid especially benefited by the proposed improvement the balance of said values and damages. The petition recites the assessment of such benefits against the property in question, and contains all other necessary allegations tending to show a compliance with the charter and the ordinances of the city of St. Louis. To this petition defendants demurred on three grounds: (1) That the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (2) that it appears upon the face of the petition that the notice required by the city ordinances to be given by the city counselor "does not give the boundaries of the taxing district as required by...