City of St. Louis v. Central Institute for the Deaf

• Citation: 149 S.W.2d 790
• Decision Date: 13 March 1941
• Docket Number: No. 36815.,36815.
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. CENTRAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

149 S.W.2d 790

CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. CENTRAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF et al.

No. 36815.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 13, 1941.

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1941.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court, Division No. 18; Joseph J. Ward, Judge.

Condemnation proceeding by the City of St. Louis, a municipal corporation, against the Central Institute for the Deaf and others. The city filed exceptions to an award of the Permanent Condemnation Commission in favor of Russell Egan and others, and from a judgment of the circuit court overruling the exceptions, the City appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

E. H. Wayman, City Counselor, and Francis J. Sullivan, Associate City Counselor, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Ford W. Thompson, of St. Louis, for respondents.

DALTON, Commissioner.

This is a condemnation proceeding instituted under authority of the city charter of the City of St. Louis to appropriate respondent's property for public use. In due time the cause was assigned for hearing before the permanent condemnation commission, pursuant to the terms of the St. Louis city charter, and an award made in the sum of $11,290. Respondents filed exceptions to this award as wholly inadequate. Upon a hearing before the circuit court, the award was vacated, a re-assessment ordered, and the cause assigned to the alternate members of the permanent board of condemnation commissioners (hereinafter referred to as the alternate commissioners), who made an award in the sum of $15,000. Plaintiff, City of St. Louis, filed exceptions to this award as excessive. Upon a hearing before the circuit court, the exceptions were overruled and judgment entered. The city has appealed.

The condemnation was pursuant to the terms of an ordinance for the opening and widening of a public highway between Kingshighway boulevard and Vandeventer Avenue. All of respondents' property was required for the improvement. The effective date of the ordinance was May 10, 1934. This suit was filed September 19, 1934. The original proceeding involved 120 tracts, according to a recital in one of the briefs, but this proceeding concerns only with "Item Number 28," this being the tract owned by respondents. The property consisted of a corner lot, fronting 58 feet on the north line of west Papin Street and 157 feet on the east side of Taylor Avenue. A filling station was located on the corner and a two story, two family flat was located on the north end of the lot.

In its printed argument appellant contends that the trial court erred in setting aside the first award and erred in overruling appellant's exceptions to the second award. Appellant filed no exceptions to the first award but objected and saved exceptions to the court's action in setting the award aside. Appellant says that we should either re-instate the first award or grant a new trial. These errors, however, are not mentioned under assignments of error, nor under points and authorities, and no authorities are cited in support of these contentions. Appellant's theory, as apparent from the errors assigned, is that the circuit court, in the hearing of the exceptions to the first award, heard incompetent testimony offered by respondents and considered the same, rather than competent testimony offered by appellant; and that at the hearing on exceptions to the second award the court heard and considered incompetent testimony offered by respondents and refused certain competent evidence offered by appellant. Appellant argues that the last award was excessive, beyond the value of the property; and that the admissible testimony lacked sufficient probative force to sustain the award.

Appellant has made 23 assignments of error. Points and authorities have 18 subdivisions, but all authorities cited are grouped under four heads. Respondents do not question the authorities cited. Although most of the assignments of error and subdivisions of points and authorities deal with alleged...