Farmers Drainage Dist. of Ray County v. Sinclair Refining Co.

Decision Date09 March 1953
Docket NumberNo. 42852,No. 1,42852,1
Citation255 S.W.2d 745
PartiesFARMERS DRAINAGE DIST. OF RAY COUNTY v. SINCLAIR REFINING CO
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Wilson D. Hill, Richmond, Harold Medill, Independence, Kan., for appellant.

Wm. T. Thompson, Richmond, for respondent.

DALTON, Judge.

This is an appeal from the order and judgment of the Circuit Court of Ray County refusing to strike a drainage benefit assessment in the sum of $5,000 made against the easements and rights of way owned by the Sinclair Refining Company. The assessment was made by commissioners appointed by the Circuit Court to assess benefits conferred on the real estate and other property within the limits of the Farmers Drainage District of Ray County.

This court has jurisdiction of the appeal because appellant contends that the assessment was made in violation of the 'due process of law' provision of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1 of Amendment XIV, in that the assessment was made without notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The facts have been stipulated by the parties. Section 512.120 (all references are to RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., unless otherwise specified). 'The Farmers Drainage District of Ray County, Missouri, was organized under provisions of Article 1, Chapter 79, R.S.1939, now provisions of Chapter 242 R.S.1949. The decree of Incorporation was filed in said Court February 21, 1945. The petition for incorporation was signed by the required number of landowners, but was not signed by the Sinclair Refining Company, which was a foreign corporation not organized in Missouri. The boundary lines given in the petition for incorporation, the Circuit Clerk's notice of the filing of the petition for incorporation, and the Decree of the Court for the formation of the District, included real estate over which the Sinclair Refining Company owned easements and private rights of way for the laying of pipelines and transmission of crude oil and refined products. These easements were of record in Ray County, Missouri, at the time the petition for incorporation was presented to the Court. The servient lands over which the easements and rights of way existed were all described by tract description, Section, Township and Range, with the name of the Record owners,' but the Sinclair Refining Company's name was not contained in these descriptions nor was there any reference to it.

Supervisors for the District were properly elected, an engineer and attorney were appointed and a Plan of Reclamation filed. All other proceedings relating to the formation of the District were in regular statutory form, and no objection is made thereto. The Court was petitioned for the appointment of Commissioners to assess the damages for rights of way taken and to assess benefits to the real estate and lands, and other property within the limits of the District, by reason of the execution of the Plan of Reclamation, adopted by the District.

Commissioners were duly appointed. They qualified, made assessments and returned their assessment took to the court. Their report, containing the assessment complained of, described the said easements and rights of way of the Sinclair Refining Company, and described them as being owned by the Sinclair Refining Company, to wit, tract No. 68, described as follows: 'All rights-of-way, pipe lines and other public service utilities now situated within the boundary lines of the Farmers Drainage District in Ray County, Missouri, and more particularly located along the south side of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Right of Way (The points of beginning and ending are then shown), * * * a distance of approximately 2 1/2 miles * * * $5000.'

Notice of the filing of the Commissioners' report was given by the clerk of the circuit court of Ray County, Missouri by publication. The notice recited: 'Notice is hereby given to all persons interested in the land and property in Ray County, Missouri contained within the exterior boundary lines of the Farmers Drainage District of Ray County, Missouri.' The exterior boundary lines of the District were then set out and after a recital with reference to a filing of the Commissioners' report the notice proceeds, 'You and each of you are hereby notified that you may examine said report and file exceptions to all or any part thereof as provided by law.' No exceptions to the report were filed by the appellant but, on December 28, 1949, appellant appearing specially filed its motion to strike the assessment against its property. The closing paragraph of appellant's motion to strike is as follows: 'That the inclusion of the right-of-way and pipe lines of Sinclair Refining Company as a part of said Farmers' Drainage District of Ray County, Missouri, and by assessing benefits against said right-of-way and pipe lines, all without notice to Sinclair Refining Company, and without first obtaining any jurisdiction over Sinclair Refining Company and without giving to Sinclair Refining Company an opportunity to be heard thereon is in violation of the constitutional rights of Sinclair Refining Company as provided for in the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and did not comply with the Statutes of Missouri under which said District was organized, and benefits and damages assessed.'

The parties have stipulated that the issues on appeal are as follows:

'The Sinclair Company contends that the Drainage District acquired no jurisdiction over Sinclair Company or its property by these proceedings, since it was not specifically described in any of the publications of notice by the Circuit Clerk, nor was there contained in any of the publications a reference to the easements of reocrd, against which the assessment is based, and therefore the Court was in error in refusing the motion to strike.

'The District contends that it is not necessary in the publications of notice relating to the formation of a Drainage District or assessment of benefits to describe an easement holder by name nor interest, but that under provisions of section 242.010 RSMo 1949, (which section defines 'owners,') a publication against the fee holder by name and legal description, will include all easement and rights of way owners.'

Appellant here insists that notice and an opportunity to be heard are jurisdictional in a tax proceeding; that appellant, as the owner of the rights of way and easements in question, was a freehold owner of land; that as such owner it was entitled to reasonable notice and a day in court before being taxed; that being the owner of record of the easements and rights of way in question, it was entitled to notice of the formation of the respondent Drainage District and to notice of the assessment of benefits; that it has had no such notice in this case; and that the tax assessment in question was without due process of law and void.

Respondent contends that 'the proceedings and notifications required by Chapter 242 RSMo 1949 complies with the due process of law provided in both the State and Federal Constitutions'; that respondent complied with the provisions of Chapter 242 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., in the proceedings shown by this record; that the petition for the formation of the Drainage District, the notice with reference thereto and the judgment of incorporation 'describes the land by section, township and range and by being within the exterior boundaries of the district and names the freehold owners'; and that the Commissioners' report specifically describes appellant's easements and names the appellant as owner. Respondent further says 'the notice of the Commissioners' report does not name anybody but is to all persons interested in land and property within the exterior boundaries of the district.'

The first question for determination is whether (in so far as appellant's property is concerned) the articles of association, notice and decree of incorporation complied with the provisions of Chapter 242 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., which deals with Drainage Districts organized in Circuit Courts.

Section 242.010 provides: 'The word 'owner' as used in sections 242.010 to 242.690 shall mean the owner of the freehold estate, as appears by the deed record, and it shall not include reversioners, remaindermen, trustees or mortgagees, who shall not be counted and need not be notified by publication, or served by process, but shall be represented by the present owners of the freehold estate in any proceeding under said sections.' (Italics ours.)

Section 242.020 with reference to the formation of such drainage districts provides for the making, signing and filing of articles of association and provides that in such articles of association there shall be stated: 'The name of the district, and the number of years the same is to continue; the boundary lines of the proposed drainage district; the names of the owners of lands or other property in said district, together with a description of the lands and other property owned by each; when the name of the owner of any of said lands or other property is unknown, this fact shall be set out in said articles; * * *.' (Italics ours.)

Section 242.030 with reference to notice of the filing of the articles of association provides that the 'notice shall be substantially' as set out in said section; and that such notice shall be directed to 'all persons interested in the following described real estate and other property'. The form of notice there set forth provides for the description of the property 'as set out in the articles of association.'

As stated, it is admitted that the proposed district 'included real estate over which the Sinclair Refining Company owned easements and private rights of way for the laying of pipe lines and the transmission of crude oil and refined products. These easements were of record in Ray County, Missouri, at the time the petition for incorporation was presented to the Court. The servient lands over which the easements and rights of way...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Quinn v. State of Mo., 87-4492-CV-C-5.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • 15 Marzo 1988
    ...in fee or for life." The Missouri Supreme Court provides the following definition of a freehold estate in Farmers Drainage District v. Sinclair Refining Co., 255 S.W.2d 745 (Mo.1953): Estates or interests in land are of two kinds: Estates of freehold and estates of less than freehold. A fre......
  • Gibson v. Sharp, 44042
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 13 Septiembre 1954
    ...895; White v. Bevier Coal Co., Mo., 261 S.W.2d 81, Id., Mo.App., 254 S.W.2d 42. We took jurisdiction of Farmers Drainage Dist. v. Sinclair Refining Co., Mo., 255 S.W.2d 745, 746, because a constitutional issue was presented. (See also observations on easements, Id., 255 S.W.2d loc. cit. Net......
  • Shelton v. M & A Elec. Power Co-op., 8891
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 29 Enero 1970
    ...p. 2903; 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 2, pp. 417--418; 28 C.J.S. Easements § 1 b, p. 620; Farmers Drainage Dist. of Ray County v. Sinclair Refining Co., Mo., 255 S.W.2d 745, 748; Beetschen v. Shell Pipe Line Corp., supra note 1, 363 Mo. at 757, 253 S.W.2d at 786(2); Bunyard v. Turl......
  • Mueller v. Larison
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 5 Junio 1961
    ...255 S.W.2d 817; Taylor v. Hughes et al., 363 Mo. 389, 251 S.W.2d 94; Dalton v. Johnson, supra; Farmers Drainage Dist. of Ray County, v. Sinclair Refining Co., Mo.Sup., 255 S.W.2d 745; Franck Bros., Inc. v. Rose, Mo.Sup., 301 S.W.2d 806; Mills v. Taylor, Mo.Sup., 270 S.W.2d 724; Chapman v. S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Exceeding the Scope of an Easement: "Expanded Use" Within a Single Cable.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 83 No. 3, June 2018
    • 22 Junio 2018
    ...See infra text accompanying notes 73-74 (further defining the expanded use easement). (20.) Farmers Drainage Dist. v. Sinclair Ref. Co., 255 S.W.2d 745, 748 (Mo. (21.) Burg v. Dampier, 346 S.W.3d 343, 353 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). (22.) Id. An easement appurtenant essentially involves two tracts......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT