City of St. Louis v. Ranken

• Decision Date: 21 May 1888
• Citation: 8 S.W. 249,95 Mo. 189
• Parties: City of St. Louis v. Ranken et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 S.W. 249

95 Mo. 189

City of St. Louis v. Ranken et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 21, 1888

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. George W. Lubke Judge.

Affirmed.

G. M Stewart for appellants.

(1) Upon the question of damages or benefits done or accruing to real property by the opening or widening of streets expert testimony is competent. Eyermann v. Sheehan, 52 Mo 221; Cantling v. Railroad, 54 Mo. 385; Hosher v. Railroad, 60 Mo. 303; Crow v. Peters, 63 Mo. 429; Tate v. Railroad, 64 Mo. 149; Brown v. Hubbard, 69 Mo. 305; Greenwell v. Crow, 73 Mo. 638; Appleby v. Brock, 76 Mo. 314; Branson v. Turner, 77 Mo. 489; City v. Hill, 80 Mo. 523; Railroad v. Calkins, 90 Mo. 538. (2) Where such testimony is competent, it must be considered by the jury, and they are not at liberty to disregard it. Greenwell v. Crow, 73 Mo. 638; City v. Hill, 80 Mo. 523.

Leverett Bell and T. H. Culver for respondent.

The instruction complained of by appellants relative to the expert witnesses was properly given. Head v. Hargrave, 105 U.S. 45; Kansas City v. Butterfield, 89 Mo. 646.

OPINION

Ray, J.

This action is brought by the city of St. Louis, on a special tax bill, to recover the amount, which it is claimed the property of defendants has been benefited by the widening of Eighteenth street in said city. No point is made on the pleadings. At the trial, the plaintiff introduced evidence to show the steps taken by the city to secure the widening of Eighteenth street, for which this tax bill was issued, including the ordinances providing therefor, and condemnation proceedings, entitled City v. Wall, report of the commissioners, and also the testimony of expert witnesses, to show that the property of the defendants had been benefited, to the full extent of the sum named in the tax bill, and rested its case. On the part of the defendants, the testimony of a number of expert witnesses was introduced, ten ding to show that defendants' property had not been benefited to any extent by the widening of the street, and should not have been assessed. These witnesses were all experienced real estate agents and dealers.

For the plaintiff the court gave the following instruction:

"The court instructs the jury, that in determining the amount, if any, that defendants' property is benefited by the widening of Eighteenth street, as shown on this trial, the testimony of the expert witnesses, who testified before them; if deemed unreasonable by the jury, may be disregarded by them.

And for the defendants the following:

"1. The jury are instructed, that while the city of St. Louis may condemn private property for the purpose of opening and widening its streets, they are also instructed that it is primarily liable to pay for the property so taken, and that no other property in the city is liable to be taxed or assessed to pay for the property so taken by the city, except such property as has been specially benefited by such widening or opening, in some respect, other than the other real estate in the city of St. Louis, generally, has been benefited by such widening or opening."

"2. The jury are instructed that the question which they have to determine in this case is the benefit, if any, which has accrued to the property of Thomas Ranken, Jr., and others, the defendants in this case, and before they can find a verdict for the plaintiff for any amount, they must be satisfied, from the evidence, that the defendants' property which has been assessed has been benefited by the widening of Eighteenth street, at and near its junction with Clark avenue, as shown on this trial, and unless the jury find and believe, from the evidence in this case, that the property of defendants, situated on the east side of Eighteenth street, has been benefited by said widening of Eighteenth street, then they should find for the defendants."

"3. The jury are instructed that in making up their verdict in this case, they should disregard so much of the finding of the commissioners, in the case of the City of St. Louis v. Wall and others, as relates to the amount of benefits which may have accrued to the property of Thomas Ranken, Jr., and others, and described in the petition, by the widening of Eighteenth street at the northwest corner of Clark avenue, as shown on this trial."

"4. If the jury should find for the plaintiff, they should assess its damages only for such amount as they may find and believe, from the evidence, the property of defendants may have sustained by the widening of Eighteenth street at its junction with Clark avenue, as shown on this trial."

Under the above instructions the jury found for plaintiff in the amount claimed, and judgment being had therefor, defendants have appealed, assigning here, as sole ground of error, the action of the court in giving...