City of St. Louis v. Wetzel
| Decision Date | 23 May 1892 |
| Citation | 19 S.W. 534,110 Mo. 260 |
| Parties | The City of St. Louis v. Wetzel et al., Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. L. B. Valliant Judge.
This is a proceeding to open an alley in the city of St. Louis. The issue made on the present appeal is upon the legality of an assessment for "benefits" against neighboring property-owners. That issue was raised by exceptions to the report of the commissioners appointed to assess damages and benefits as provided by the city charter.
The circuit court heard evidence on the questions of fact raised by the exceptions, finally overruled the latter, and entered judgment in due course accordingly. From that judgment Mr Wetzel (and several of the other parties defendant, against whose property "benefits" were found) appealed after the ordinary steps for a review.
The other facts appear in the opinion of the court.
Affirmed.
E. T. Farrish for appellants.
There was a common-law dedication of the strip of ground here in question by Hugo F. Thomas, which precluded him from ever after asserting ownership thereof, so as to preclude the rights of others accruing from such dedication. This mode of dedication is not precluded or abridged by statutory regulations providing for dedication in certain specific ways. See Cincinnati v. White, 6 Peters (U.S.) 431, generally accepted and followed as a leading case in defining the requisites of a common-law dedication. Noyes v. Ward, 19 Conn. 250; Manly v. Gibson, 13 Ill. 308. "From use with the assent of the owner the law presumes dedication, the use being for such a length of time that the public accommodation and private rights might be materially affected by interruption of the enjoyment." Mayor v. Franklin, 12 Ga. 239; Case v. Fabier, 12 Minn. 89; Cady v. Conger, 19 N.Y. 257. And it is well-settled law that when land is dedicated and enjoyed as such, and rights are acquired by either individuals or the public, by virtue of such dedication, the former owner is precluded from revoking such dedication. Mayor v. Franklin, 12 Ga. 239; Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38; Mankato v. Willard, 13 Minn. 13; Leffler v. Burlington, 18 Iowa 36.
W. C. Marshall for respondent.
(1) The circuit court having determined the question of fact as to the reasonableness of the award, and there being evidence in support of and in opposition to the amount found by the commissioners, and there being an irreconcilable conflict of testimony on that subject, this court will not disturb the finding, nor inquire into that question. Krider v. Milner, 99 Mo. 145; Fulkerson v. Mitchell, 82 Mo. 13. Respondent, therefore, respectfully declines to discuss this exception. (2) Unless the payment by Thomas of the tax bills for the construction of the sewer amount, in law, to a dedication of the strip in question, it cannot be said that this proceeding is void on the theory that the alley was already an alley, and, hence, the city should not have attempted to condemn for public use that to which she already had title by dedication. If the property had been acquired for use as an alley, it could have been used to construct a sewer, but the converse of this proposition is not true. Dillon on Municipal Corporations [4 Ed.] secs. 688, 752, and note 4. (3) However construed, the charter does not limit the assessment to the property abutting on the proposed alley, but limits it only to the property in said (the) block abutting on the proposed alley. An attempt to construe it otherwise necessarily leaves out of consideration the three words, "in said block," and would require the court to read this section as follows: The benefits shall be paid by the owners of property abutting on the proposed alley. All the words of a statute must be given a meaning, if possible. Courts cannot disregard any word in a statute, if a meaning can be given to it.
The original purpose of this action was to condemn a strip of land, sixteen feet wide by seventy feet and two inches long, in block 695, to public use as an alley, and assess the "benefits" of the improvement as required by the city charter of St. Louis. R. S. 1889, sec. 5, p. 2120.
An alley had previously been opened from Miller street, part way through that block; and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial