City of St. Louis v. Bircher

Decision Date31 October 1882
Citation76 Mo. 431
PartiesTHE CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. BIRCHER, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

AFFIRMED.

W. H. H. Russell for appellant.

Leverett Bell for respondent.

The charter of St. Louis authorizes the city government to license, tax and regulate hotels and boarding houses. 2 R. S., p. 1586, par. 5, § 26, art. 3. Ordinance 10,662 is a valid exercise of the power thus granted. Every point made in this case is settled against the appellant. St. Louis v. Sternberg, 69 Mo. 289; St. Louis v. Green, 70 Mo. 562; s. c., 6 Mo. App. 591; St. Louis, v. Bircher, 7 Mo. App. 169.

HENRY, J.

Defendant was prosecuted and fined in the police court of the city of St. Louis, for violating a city ordinance, in keeping a hotel without license. The judgment was affirmed by the court of criminal correction and by the court of appeals, and defendant has appealed to this court.

The following is the ordinance in question:

Section 1. A house where persons are furnished with either board or lodging, or both, for a conpensation paid, or to be paid therefor, and having more than four bed-rooms for the use of guests, is a hotel or boarding house within the meaning of this ordinance.

Sec. 2. There shall be levied and collected by the collector, for every hotel or boarding house, the sum of fifty cents for every room in such house, which has been constructed or intended to be used as bed-rooms or parlors, the payment of which amount shall entitle such hotel or boarding house to a license for one year, and no license shall be issued for a less term than one year.

Sec. 3. Any person, firm or corporation who shall keep a hotel or boarding house without first having obtained a license therefor, according to the provisions of section 2 of this ordinance, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined in double the amount required for license for such hotel or boarding house, not exceeding, however, the sum of $500; but nothing in this ordinance shall be so construed as to mean houses where relations of the family only are boarding for a compensation.”

Appellant's counsel has filed an elaborate argument, in which, if we understand it, he maintains that because it is provided in section 1, article 10 of the constitution, that: “The taxing power may be exercised by the general assembly for State purposes, and by counties and other municipal corporations, under authority granted to them by the general assembly, for county and other purposes,” the ordinance in question is void, no legislative authority having been given the city to pass it, and section 20, article 9, authorizing the city to frame...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State ex rel. Zoolog. Board v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 Enero 1928
    ...as these provisions have been construed. St. Louis v. Sternberg, 4 Mo. App. 453; St. Louis v. Sternberg, 69 Mo. 289; St. Louis v. Bircher, 76 Mo. 431; Security Sav. Bank v. Hinton, 97 Cal. 214. Under the Charter of 1876 and the present charter, St. Louis was given full power to levy taxes f......
  • Kansas City v. Threshing Machine Co., 31452.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 Octubre 1935
    ...regard to the four general classifications provided for therein. They, also, both hold contrary to the ruling in St. Louis v. Bircher, 76 Mo. 431, that Section 1 of Article X does not apply to cities authorized by the Constitution to frame their own charters. Upon that proposition 87 S.W.2d......
  • State ex rel. Carpenter v. St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 Enero 1928
    ...exclusively as a restriction on the power of the city to levy and collect taxes. State ex rel. v. Van Every, 75 Mo. 537; St. Louis v. Bircher, 76 Mo. 431; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 15 Mo. App. 441; Halbruegger v. City, 262 S.W. 381; Brooks v. Schutz, 178 Mo. 222; State ex rel. v. Weinrich, 236 ......
  • State v. Parker Distilling Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 3 Julio 1911
    ...fee graduated according to the number of rooms devoted to the accommodation of the public. St. Louis v. Bircher, 7 Mo.App. 169; St. Louis v. Bircher, 76 Mo. 431. following authorities sustain the principle. Ex parte Mount, 66 Cal. 448; Allentown v. Gross, 132 Pa. St. 319; Knisely v. Cottrel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT