Donovan v. Kansas City

• Decision Date: 03 March 1944
• Docket Number: 38305
• Citation: 175 S.W.2d 874,352 Mo. 430
• Parties: Joseph S. Donovan, as Administrator of the Estate of Stephen J. Donovan, Deceased, Appellant, v. Kansas City, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

175 S.W.2d 874

352 Mo. 430

Joseph S. Donovan, as Administrator of the Estate of Stephen J. Donovan, Deceased, Appellant, v. Kansas City, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation

No. 38305

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 3, 1944

November 1, 1943

Rehearing Denied December 6, 1943, Supplemental

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Paul A. Buzard Judge.

Affirmed.

Armwell L. Cooper and Cyrus Crane for appellant Cooper, Neel & Sutherland, Frank W. McAllister and William J. Carroll of counsel.

(1) The obligation to do justice rests upon all persons, natural and artificial, and, the defendant having obtained the property of plaintiff's decedent, the law, independent of any statute or charter provision, will compel compensation. Shipman's Common Law Pleading (2 Ed.), p. 26; St Louis v. Caime, 180 Mo. 309; Billingsly v. Clelland, 41 W.Va. 234, 23 S.E. 812; Shaw v. Board of Education, 31 P.2d 993, 93 A.L.R. 432; Rutherford v. Hamilton, 97 Mo. 543; Wood v. Kansas City, 162 Mo. 303; Chapman v. Douglas County Commissioners, 107 U.S. 348, 27 L.Ed. 378; Floyd County v. Allen, 126 S.W. 124, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1125; Brown v. Atchison, 39 Kan. 37, 17 P. 465, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1123; Edwards House Co. v. City of Jackson, 138 Miss. 644, 42 A.L.R. 625; Hill County v. Shaw & Borden Co., 225 F. 475; West Virginia Coal Co. v. St. Louis, 25 S.W.2d 466; Bardwell v. Southern Engine & Boiler Works, 113 S.W. 97, 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 110; Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. City of Wagoner, 86 F.2d 288; Busch-Sulzer Bros. Diesel Engine Co. v. City of Walters, 133 F.2d 65. (2) Preservation of the public safety and health is the highest duty performed by a government. This paramount duty is performed through exercise of the police power. Such power cannot be abridged by municipal charter or statute. From the very necessities of the case the defendant was under the inescapable duty and had the all-embracing power, unfettered and unrestrained by municipal charter or statute, to procure and use the food supplies in suit. Zummo v. Kansas City, 285 Mo. 222, 225 S.W. 934; Water Co. v. City of Aurora, 129 Mo. 540, 31 S.W. 946; Ferrenbach v. Turner, 86 Mo. 416; Eubank v. City of Richmond, 226 U.S. 137, 57 L.Ed. 156; State v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 242 Mo. 339, 147 S.W. 118; Lake View v. Rose Hill Cemetery Co., 70 Ill. 191; Thomas v. Mason, 26 L.R.A. 727; St. Louis v. Nash, 260 S.W. 985; Tranbarger v. Chicago & Alton R. Co., 250 Mo. 46, 156 S.W. 694, 238 U.S. 67, 59 L.Ed. 1204; Kansas City v. K.C. Term. Ry. Co., 324 Mo. 882, 25 S.W.2d 1055; State ex rel. Pollock v. Becker, 289 Mo. 660, 233 S.W. 641; Ewing v. Vernon County, 216 Mo. 681, 116 S.W. 518; Lumber Co. v. Railroad, 216 Mo. 658, 116 S.W. 530; Keeney v. McVoy, 206 Mo. 42, 103 S.W. 946; Delany v. Moraitis, 136 F.2d 129; State ex rel. Waller v. Trustees of William Jewell College, 234 Mo. 299, 136 S.W. 397; Dudley v. Clark, 255 Mo. 570, 164 S.W. 608; Harlem Gas Co. v. Mayor of New York, 33 N.Y. 309; Missouri-Kansas-Chemical Corp. v. New Madrid County, 345 Mo. 1167, 139 S.W.2d 457; Rummens v. Evans, 168 Wash. 527, 13 P.2d 26; Rauch v. Chapman, 16 Wash. 586, 48 P. 253; Gladwin v. Ames, 30 Wash. 608; Denver v. Webber, 15 Colo.App. 511; State ex rel. Hawes v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23, 54 S.W. 524; Wegmann Realty Co. v. St. Louis, 329 Mo. 972, 47 S.W.2d 770; Rinehart v. Howell County, 348 Mo. 421, 153 S.W.2d 381; Maxwell v. Andrews County, 347 Mo. 156, 146 S.W.2d 621; Buchanan v. Ralls County, 283 Mo. 10, 222 S.W. 1002; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 174 Mo. 125, 73 S.W. 623. (3) If the three defenses, or either of them, asserted by defendant had merit in an action on contract, then the title to the food supplies did not pass and defendant is guilty of the conversion thereof and is liable to plaintiff in damages. Hawkins v. Cox, 334 Mo. 640, 66 S.W.2d 539; United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose, 231 Mo. 508, 132 S.W. 1133; Dooley v. Kansas City, 82 Mo. 444; Barton v. City of Odessa, 109 Mo.App. 76, 82 S.W. 1119; Bostic v. Workman, 224 Mo.App. 645, 31 S.W.2d 218; Soulard v. St. Louis, 36 Mo. 546; Hunt v. City of Boonville, 65 Mo. 620; Allison v. City of Richmond, 51 Mo.App. 133; Rowland v. City of Gallatin, 75 Mo. 134; Thomson v. City of Boonville, 61 Mo. 283; Roeder v. Robertson, 202 Mo. 522, 100 S.W. 1086; Am. Jur., sec. 582. (4) If it be held, as defendant contends, that assumpsit does not lie, and if it be held further that an action in tort for conversion of the supplies cannot be maintained, then plaintiff has no plain, adequate and complete remedy at law and a court of equity will take jurisdiction (no right without a remedy); and the defendant having acquired the food supplies in question and having used and had the benefits thereof is now estopped in equity to deny liability for payment therefor to the extent of the value of such benefits. Authorities under Points (1) and (2); Castle Creek Water Co. v. City of Aspen, 146 F. 8; Kingenberger v. Davis, 268 S.W. 99; Caruth-Byrnes Hardware Co. v. Walter, 91 Mo. 484, 3 S.W. 865; Harlem Gas. Co. v. Mayor of New York, 33 N.Y. 309; Guffey v. O'Reily, 88 Mo. 418; Horn v. Cole, 51 N.H. 287; Lee v. Howe, 27 Mo. 521; Wilson v. Drain. District, 257 Mo. 266, 165 S.W. 734, 176 Mo.App. 470, 158 S.W. 931; Gupton v. Gupton, 47 Mo. 37; McLure v. Bank of Commerce, 252 Mo. 510, 160 S.W. 1005; Edwards v. Kirkwood, 147 Mo.App. 599, 127 S.W. 378; Sec. 1142, R.S., 1939; Ewing v. Vernon County, 216 Mo. 681; Chapman v. Douglas County Commissioners, 107 U.S. 348, 27 L.Ed. 378; Shaw v. Board of Education, 31 P.2d 993, 93 A.L.R. 432. (5) The three defenses asserted by defendant have no pertinency to an action in tort for conversion or suit in equity for the value of the benefits received, but are limited in their application to actions ex contractu. United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose, 231 Mo. 508, 132 S.W. 1133; Wilson v. Drain. District, 257 Mo. 266, 165 S.W. 734; Schueler v. City of Kirkwood, 191 Mo.App. 575, 177 S.W. 760. (6) In the acquisition by defendant of the food supplies in suit there was opportunity for competition and Sec. 3349, R.S. 1939, was complied with notwithstanding its restrictive provisions have no pertinency to or bearing upon defendant's liability. Harvey v. City and County of Denver, 92 Colo. 114, 18 P.2d 321; Riddle & Dees v. Castner, 202 Mo.App. 584, 209 S.W. 127; Krohn-Fechheimer Co. v. Palmer, 282 Mo. 82, 221 S.W. 353; Dinuba Farmers Union Packing Co. v. Anderson Gro. Co., 193 Mo.App. 236; Weil Clothing Co. v. Natl. Garment Co., 148 S.W.2d 586; Williams v. Williams, 325 Mo. 963, 30 S.W.2d 69; Sec. 3349, R.S. 1939; 27 C.J., pp. 259, 288; Rutherford v. Hamilton, 97 Mo. 543. (7) The appropriations for the defendant's Health Department having been exhausted it was not necessary, nor would it have been proper, for the Director of Finance to make falsely the certificates of unencumbered balances prescribed by Sections 91 and 92 of the Charter for use when funds were in hand. (8) Sections 80, 91, 92, 93 and 94 of Article IV of defendant's Charter and Sec. 3349, R.S. 1939, are unconstitutional and void, in that they deprive plaintiff of his property without due process of law, take his property for public use without just compensation, and deny plaintiff the equal protection of the law, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Sections 10 and 30 of Article II of the Constitution of Missouri. Amends. Fifth and Fourteenth, Constitution of United States; Secs. 10, 30, Art. II, Constitution Mo.; McGrath v. Meyers, 341 Mo. 412, 107 S.W.2d 792; Ex parte Bass, 328 Mo. 195, 40 S.W.2d 457; Syz v. Milk Wagon Drivers' Union, 323 Mo. 130, 18 S.W.2d 441; Schildnecht v. Joplin, 327 Mo. 126, 35 S.W.2d 35; State ex rel. Mulholland v. Smith, 141 Mo. 1, 41 S.W. 906; State ex rel. Curtice v. Smith, 177 Mo. 69, 75 S.W. 625; Placke v. Union Depot Railroad Co., 140 Mo. 634, 41 S.W. 915; State ex rel. Rose v. Webb City, 333 Mo. 1127, 64 S.W.2d 597; United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose, 231 Mo. 508, 132 S.W. 1133; Sparks v. Jasper County, 213 Mo. 218, 112 S.W. 265; Roeder v. Robinson, 202 Mo. 522, 100 S.W. 1086; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 41 L.Ed. 489; Fallbrook v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 41 L.Ed. 369. (9) The equitable doctrine forbidding "unearned enrichment," sometimes referred to as "unjust enrichment," presents a principle analogous to the principle invoked in support of count two of the petition and is well expounded in Berry v. Stigall, 253 Mo. 690, 696. Calloway Bank v. Ellis, 238 S.W. 844.

William E. Kemp, City Counselor, and John J. Cosgrove, Assistant City Counselor, for respondent.

(1) An action in trover will not lie. The rule of law that the obligation to do justice rests upon all persons does not apply to persons who are parties to illegal agreements. Plaintiff's decedent was a party to an oral contract which was expressly prohibited by Statute and Charter and the same was illegal and void. Courts will leave the parties to such contracts where they have placed themselves. Sec. 3349 R.S. 1939; Secs. 92, 94, Art. IV, Kansas City Charter; St. Louis v. Davidson, 102 Mo. 153; Fleshner v. Kansas City, 156 S.W.2d 706; General Mfg. Co. v. City, 28 S.W.2d 119; Eureka Fire Hose Co. v. City, 106 S.W.2d 513; Likes v. Rolla, 167 S.W. 645; Mullins v. Kansas City, 188 S.W. 103; Mister v. Kansas City, 18 Mo.App. 217; Cheeney v. Town of Brookfield, 60 Mo. l.c. 54; Dameron v. Hamilton, 264 Mo. 123; United States v. Mulvey, 232 F. 513; Staacke v. Routledge, 241 S.W. 994; Uhlmann v. Kin Daw, 103 P. 435; Keating v. Kansas City, 84 Mo. 415; Cook v. City of Cameron, 114 Mo.App. 144; Wolcott v. Lawrence County, 226 Mo. 272; Lively v. Webb City, 106 S.W.2d 517; General Electric Co. v. Town of Ft. Deposit, 174 Ala. 179; Crutchfield v. Warrensburg, 30 Mo.App. 460; ...