City of St. Louis v. Franklin Bank

• Citation: 98 S.W.2d 534
• Decision Date: 12 November 1936
• Docket Number: 34217
• Parties: CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. FRANKLIN BANK et al
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

98 S.W.2d 534

CITY OF ST. LOUIS v. FRANKLIN BANK et al

No. 34217

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

November 12, 1936

Chas M. Hay, City Counselor, and John T. Hicks and Francis J Sullivan, Associate City Counselors, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

Bryan Williams, Cave & McPheeters, of St. Louis, for respondents.

OPINION

HAYS Judge.

This is a condemnation proceeding brought by the city of St. Louis for the establishment, widening, and opening of Morgan street from Third street westwardly to Spring avenue and beyond to Delmar boulevard and Enright avenue.

In the circuit court, commissioners were duly appointed to assess damages to the lands of property owners affected by the proceedings. Respondents (as defendants below) were the owners of one of such properties. The commissioners awarded damages in the sum of $ 9,000, to be offset pro tanto by assessed benefits in the sum of $ 5,000, leaving a balance of $ 4,000 net damages over benefits due respondents.

The city of St. Louis (plaintiff below) filed exception to the commissioners' report, based upon the sole alleged ground that said award of damages was excessive. Upon trial of the issue raised by the exception, the court below, on evidence adduced by the appellant, made a like finding as to damages and benefits and a like award of net benefits of $ 4,000, and rendered judgment for respondents for $ 4,000. From such judgment the city was granted an appeal to this court.

Although this court's jurisdiction of the appeal is not questioned by counsel, nevertheless this court is in duty bound to look into that matter if an inspection of the record raises any doubt of our court's appellate jurisdiction in the premises. So then, what is the basis of our jurisdiction? On the record outlined above our jurisdiction, if any, must rest upon the ground that the title to real estate is involved or upon the amount in dispute -- the one or the other or both. Section 12, art. 6, Mo.Const.; Amend. 1884, § 1 et seq.; section 1914, R.S.1929 (Mo.St.Ann. § 1914, p. 2587).

It is patent that the title to real estate is not involved. This because the right to condemn land for the purposes for which the suit was brought is conceded, and the respondents did not dispute the right of the city to have commissioners appointed to assess the damages now complained of. Relative to such a situation the law is settled that the title to real estate is not involved so...