Ewing v. Kansas City
| Decision Date | 06 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | 38361 |
| Parties | Kenneth E. Ewing, Respondent, v. Kansas City, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation; John B. Gage as Mayor of Kansas City, Missouri; Walter R. Scott, Russell F. Greiner, John C. Rodahaffer, Merrill K. Dubach, Edwin A. Harris, Joseph C. Fennelly, George J. Miller and Frank H. Backstrom as Councilmen of Kansas City, Missouri; L. P. Cookingham as City Manager of Kansas City, Missouri; Arthur C. Everham as Director of Public Works of Kansas City, Missouri; Horace R. McMorris as Director of Finance of Kansas City, Missouri; Harry G. Gorman as Treasurer of Kansas City, Missouri; and Thomas J. Patten as Auditor of Kansas City, Missouri, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Marion D. Waltner Judge.
Transferred to Kansas City Court of Appeals.
William E. Kemp, City Counselor, and Arthur R. Wolfe Assistant City Counselor, for appellants.
Roger C. Slaughter for respondent.
Dalton C. Bradley and Van Osdol, CC., concur.
Action in equity by plaintiff as a taxpayer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, to enjoin Kansas City, the members of the city council, the Mayor and other officers from using or permitting the use of the "Old Convention Hall Site" lot for parking lot purposes and from carrying out the terms of an alleged illegal and void ordinance. It is alleged that the traffic plan announced in Ordinance No. 6908, and the proposed use of said lot thereunder, is a mere subterfuge; that the plan was not made in good faith to create trafficways, but for the fraudulent purpose of evading the lawful restrictions imposed upon said lot; that the lot was purchased with trafficway bond issue funds; that the lot is impressed with a trust for use for trafficway purposes only; and that the defendants seek to use said ordinance to accomplish an illegal purpose, to wit, the use of the lot for automobile parking, and intend to illegally divert the proceeds of the bond issue and defeat and evade its terms.
The trial court found that Ordinance No. 6908 was valid and legal on its face; and that it did not show an unlawful intention to establish a parking station for hire or otherwise, or an intention to violate the restrictions, and refused to enjoin defendants from carrying out its terms and provisions, but the court found that it was in fact the intention of defendants "to strain the terms of said Bond Proposition Eight" (the bond issue for trafficway improvements) to create parking facilities on the lot. The court permanently enjoined defendants from violating said ordinance, or from modifying, changing, or otherwise altering it in any way or manner (to the end that by such changes an area for parking facilities, with or without hire, might be created), and further enjoined defendants from ever permitting other than horizontal or parallel parking along the right hand curbs of the trafficways provided by the ordinance upon said lot. Defendants have appealed.
On May 26, 1931, at a special bond election in Kansas City, a bond issue was authorized "to pay the City's share of the cost of the acquisition of the necessary lands for the opening, widening and establishing of trafficways and boulevards in the city and the improvement of the same for travel, including the necessary bridges and viaducts." From the proceeds of this bond issue, the City on June 28, 1935, acquired a tract of land, referred to as the "Old Convention Hall Site," being approximately the west 2/3 of the block immediately north of the Municipal Auditorium in Kansas City. The Municipal Auditorium is located between Thirteenth and Fourteenth streets and between Wyandotte and Central streets. The lot in question fronts on Twelfth, Thirteenth and Central streets.
Kansas City attempted to make no use of this lot until April 14, 1941. On that date, Ordinance No. 6576 was duly adopted by the City Council. By the terms of this ordinance, the Director of Public Works of said city was ordered and directed "to provide and construct driveways in and through said property, to construct a shelter house thereon, to provide parking facilities for automobiles, and appropriate markings therefor, and to plant shrubs and trees along the margin and borders of said area, all in accordance with" a plan attached, which plan provided a parking area for from 192 to 233 automobiles, depending upon the method of parking, and provided for three north and south driveways, with places for ingress and egress thereto.
Plaintiff filed this suit on May 26, 1941 and, thereupon, after receiving certain legal advice from the City Counselor's office to the effect that a court might interpret said ordinance as indicating an intention to establish a commercial parking lot, the city council on October 20, 1941, repealed Ordinance No. 6576 and adopted Ordinance No. 6908. By the new ordinance, the Council found that there was "a necessity for the opening and establishing of trafficways in and through said property for the use, convenience and safety of the public when approaching and leaving the Municipal Auditorium . . . and for expediting traffic to, from or through said vicinity." By this ordinance, almost the same authority and direction was given the Director of Public Works as in the preceding ordinance, except that parking facilities for automobiles was not mentioned and a new plan for trafficways was attached. The amended petition upon which the cause was tried was filed after the first ordinance had been repealed and the second ordinance passed.
The new plan provides for a shelter house and landscaping on the south end of the lot, with landscaping on the north end and along the west side. Two north and south traffic lanes (60 feet wide), divided by a promenade, extend between the landscaping at the north and south ends. The east traffic lane has a south entrance (18 feet wide) from Thirteenth street and an east entrance (25 feet wide) off of Wyandotte street, north of the Robert E. Lee Hotel. There is an exit (25 feet wide) on Central street a short distance south of the intersection of Twelfth and Central streets. The west traffic lane enters from Central street, immediately north of Thirteenth street (a 25 foot entrance), and extends north and re-enters Central street a short distance south of Twelfth street, where it has the same exit as the other traffic lane. No plan for parking is shown on this plat. Automobiles using the traffic lanes would discharge their passengers along the promenade between the traffic lanes and proceed to the Central street exit, while the passengers discharged would proceed south along the promenade to Thirteenth street and across to the Auditorium, crossing at either end of the block.
The ordinance authorized the expenditure of $ 7,000 of city "Trafficway Improvement Bond Funds" and the total improvement was to cost in excess of $ 30,000, of which the Works Projects Administration, Federal Works Agency, was furnishing labor amounting to $ 22,560 and material amounting to $ 1,956. It was admitted that both the city and the W. P. A. were ready to proceed with the improvement at the time of the trial.
Defendants' answer denied that they were contemplating the establishment of a parking lot, or the diversion of the proceeds of the bond issue, and alleged that, in passing said ordinance, the members of the city council acted in good faith and upon their best judgment to relieve traffic congestion.
In view of the conclusions we have reached, it will be unnecessary to review the evidence relied upon by plaintiff to sustain the injunction decree as entered. It will only be necessary to consider the question of our jurisdiction. In doing so, we consider first the issues presented for review.
Many errors are assigned, but all are briefed under three heads: (1) that the decree does not conform to the pleadings, the evidence or the court's findings, and is void; (2) that the court exceeded its authority in attempting to interfere with future legislative acts and discretionary powers of the Council (to modify, change, or alter the ordinance), and in substituting its judgment for that of the governing body of the city as to the character of this public improvement (the use to be made of city streets and the character of parking thereon); and (3) that "the court erroneously granted injunctive relief to allay the fears and apprehensions of the plaintiff and without any substantial evidence to support the decree." Appellants say the evidence wholly failed to show that the members of the City Council or the city officials intended to establish a parking lot on the property.
In reply, the respondent says the decree conforms to the pleadings, the evidence, and the prayer of the petition; that the evidence showed a real intent to create a parking lot that defendants were enjoined from converting the lot into an area for parking facilities; and that "the decree is fully justified under the law and the evidence." It is apparent, therefore, that respondent seeks merely to sustain the decree, as entered, and has wholly abandond any claim to other relief, which was denied by the trial court. The only issue presented on this appeal, by either appellants or respondent, concerns respondent's right to the relief actually granted by the decree, to wit, that defendants be perpetually restrained and enjoined "from violating in any way or manner, or to any extent the avowed purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Royal Meat Products Co. v. Kansas City, Mo.
... ... use. Revised Ordinances of Kansas City, Missouri, Section ... 55-3.13 and Section 55-3.7; Ordinance No. 45608. (4) Kansas ... City Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of this appeal, since ... the record does not show that the amount in dispute exceeds ... the amount of $ 7,500.00. Ewing v. Kansas City, 350 ... Mo. 1071, 169 S.W. 2d 897; Wagner v. Mederacke, 354 ... Mo. 977, 192 S.W. 2d 865; State ex rel. Lamm v. Mid-State ... Serum Co., 264 S.W. 878. (5) The court erred in holding ... that plaintiffs have the right to use the property for any ... other use or uses described ... ...
-
Hunter v. Hunter
... ... Theodorow Bakery Co., 334 Mo ... 508, 511, 66 S.W. 2d 147, 148; Hardt v. City Ice & Fuel ... Co., 340 Mo. 721, 722, 102 S.W. 2d 592, 593. This ... statement of the rule may be ... to the record have ceased to be a live question in the case ... State ex rel. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co. v. Waltner, ... 350 Mo. 1021, 1041[6], 169 S.W. 2d 697, 706[24]; State ex ... 2d 108, 109; West St. Louis W. & Lt. Co. v. Public Serv. Comm. (Mo.), 197 S.W. 340 ... Ewing v. Kansas City, 350 Mo. 1071, 1076, 169 S.W ... 2d 897, 900, states: " ... our jurisdiction ... ...
-
Wagner v. Mederacke
... ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. James F ... Nangle, Judge ... ... Transferred to the St ... involved. National Surety Co. v. Columbia Nat. Bank of ... Kansas City, 348 Mo. 226, 153 S.W.2d 364. Also, ... ordinarily, in these circumstances the plaintiff's ... the appeal was allowed, that a sum in excess of $ 7,500.00 is ... involved. Ewing v. Kansas City, 350 Mo. 1071, 1075, ... 169 S.W.2d 897, 900; Higgins v. Smith, 346 Mo. 1044, ... ...
-
Dutton v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
... ... From ... the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis Civil Appeal Judge ... William H. Killoren ... Appeal ... Frank Schmidt Planing Mill Co. v ... Mueller et al., 347 Mo. 466, 147 S.W.2d 670; Ewing ... v. Kansas City et al., 350 Mo. 1071, 169 S.W.2d 897. In ... the present record there is no ... ...