Ewing v. City of St Louis
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FIELD |
| Citation | 5 Wall. 413,72 U.S. 413,18 L.Ed. 657 |
| Parties | EWING v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1866 |
THIS was a bill in equity, filed in the Circuit Court for Missouri, to enjoin the enforcement of certain judgments rendered against the complainant by the mayor of St. Louis for the amount of alleged benefit to his property from the opening of Wash Street, in that city, and to obtain compensation for the property of the complainant appropriated by the city for the use of the street.
The bill, after averring the complainant's ownership of certain lots in that city, alleged that the mayor, at the instance of the city, and by its authority, issued a notice and summons against the complainant and others as defendants, addressed to the marshal of the city, with the object of notifying to them proceedings thereby instituted 'for the purpose of condemning private property in order to open Wash Street,' and summoning them to appear before him on a day named, to show cause why the city should not proceed to open the street, &c.
That a jury was sworn at the instance of the city to assess the damages and benefits against and for the said city and
Page 414
against and for all persons whose property was benefited or taken by the said street being opened, and retuened, as their verdict (in so far as regarded the complainant), that in order to open Wash Street, it would be necessary to take a parcel of land (described) belonging to the complainant, and the actual value of which, without reference to the proposed improvement, was found to be $1027; also, two other parcels (described), the actual value of which was found to be $5825. The jury also found that the entire value of the ground necessary to be taken for the said purpose, including that above named of the complainant, was $18,492. To pay which the jury assessed against the city $100, against the complainant as owner of certain blocks and lots $7993.58, and the residue against other owners, $10,398.42. Total, $18,492.
That this verdict was afterwards entered on the journal of proceedings kept by the mayor, and was not set aside, but was, within four months after being rendered, reported by the mayor to the city council, and within three months thereafter, to wit, on the 9th day of November, 1858, the city council, by ordinance, appropriated the sum of $100 to pay said assessment against the city; but that the mayor did not, at any time within twenty days after said appropriation was made, render judgment in favor of said city against the complainant, for the said sums assessed against him as aforesaid by the verdict of the jury.
That the mayor was not vested in law with power and authority to render such judgment against him at any time, and had not any color or pretence of authority by any ordinance or provision of law to render any such judgment at any time after the expiration of twenty days after the appropriation was so made by the council. Nevertheless, that at some long time after the expiration of twenty days thereafter, there was written upon the journal of proceedings of the mayor, where the same still remains, an entry, set forth in the bill in extenso, the substance of which is, that 'Now, on the 20th day of November, 1858, the city council having, on the 9th day of November, 1858, confirmed the award of
Page 415
the jury in the matter of opening Wash Street,' &c., 'and made an appropriation to pay the sum awarded by said verdict against the city, it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the city do recover of the said parties and of the said property set forth and described in said verdict the several sums and amounts assessed and allowed by way of benefits in said verdict, on account of,' &c., 'in manner and form following, to wit,' &c. (reciting, so far as regards the complainant, the substance of the verdict), 'amounting, in the aggregate, to the sum of $7993.58 damages by way of benefits, and $1.25 costs, and have execution therefor.' The name of O. D. Filley, mayor, being subscribed at the foot of said entry upon the said journal.
That the said entry, although of no legal validity, nevertheless tends...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Verdin v. City of St. Louis
...of inferior local jurisdiction. Anderson v. City of St. Louis, 47 Mo. 479. In the just-cited case that of Ewing v. City of St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413, was approvingly followed, where an assessment for benefits was sought to be enjoined; and it was ruled that, as a plain, adequate, and complete ......
-
City of Jasper v. Sanders, 6 Div. 238.
...Corp. (5th Ed.) § 1590; 1 Pom. Eq. Juris. §§ 259-270; High on Inj. §§ 367, 368; Heywood v. Buffalo, 14 N.Y. 534; Ewing v. St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413, 18 L.Ed. 657." Penton v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co., 222 Ala. 159, 131 So. 14; Jasper Land Co. v. City of Jasper, 220 Ala. 639, 127 So. 210; Jones v.......
-
Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy, 3 Div. 567.
...relief against such proceedings, the instances are rare; and this is not one of these exceptional cases. Ewing v. St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413, 18 L.Ed. 657; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563. It is held by the Supreme Court of the United States that in creating such boa......
-
Pine Bluff Water & Light Co. v. City of Pine Bluff
...13 A. 5; 37 N.W. 809; 23 A. 281; id. 284; 28 P. 416; 25 N.E. 995; 45 N.W. 899. This view has been sanctioned by the U. S. Supreme Court, 5 Wall. 413. See also Harris on Certiorari, sec. 17. 2. But our statute seems to settle the matter. Sand. & H. Dig., secs. 1125, 1127. Crawford & Hudson, ......
-
Verdin v. City of St. Louis
...of inferior local jurisdiction. Anderson v. City of St. Louis, 47 Mo. 479. In the just-cited case that of Ewing v. City of St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413, was approvingly followed, where an assessment for benefits was sought to be enjoined; and it was ruled that, as a plain, adequate, and complete ......
-
City of Jasper v. Sanders, 6 Div. 238.
...Corp. (5th Ed.) § 1590; 1 Pom. Eq. Juris. §§ 259-270; High on Inj. §§ 367, 368; Heywood v. Buffalo, 14 N.Y. 534; Ewing v. St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413, 18 L.Ed. 657." Penton v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co., 222 Ala. 159, 131 So. 14; Jasper Land Co. v. City of Jasper, 220 Ala. 639, 127 So. 210; Jones v.......
-
Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy, 3 Div. 567.
...relief against such proceedings, the instances are rare; and this is not one of these exceptional cases. Ewing v. St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413, 18 L.Ed. 657; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563. It is held by the Supreme Court of the United States that in creating such boa......
-
Pine Bluff Water & Light Co. v. City of Pine Bluff
...13 A. 5; 37 N.W. 809; 23 A. 281; id. 284; 28 P. 416; 25 N.E. 995; 45 N.W. 899. This view has been sanctioned by the U. S. Supreme Court, 5 Wall. 413. See also Harris on Certiorari, sec. 17. 2. But our statute seems to settle the matter. Sand. & H. Dig., secs. 1125, 1127. Crawford & Hudson, ......