Fruin-Bambrick Const. Co. v. St. Louis Shovel Co.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1908
• Citation: 211 Mo. 524,111 S.W. 86
• Parties: FRUIN-BAMBRICK CONST. CO. v. ST. LOUIS SHOVEL CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

111 S.W. 86

211 Mo. 524

FRUIN-BAMBRICK CONST. CO. v. ST. LOUIS SHOVEL CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

April 1, 1908.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — STREET IMPROVEMENTS — SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS — ST. LOUIS CITY CHARTER.

St. Louis City Charter, art. 6, § 14 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4854), providing for the formation of special assessment districts for the assessment of the cost of street improvements against adjoining property, is not unconstitutional; the levying of special assessments for local improvements being referable to the taxing power, and the Legislature being authorized to create special taxing districts and charge the cost of a local improvement in whole or in part on the property in the districts, either according to value or superficial area.

2. SAME — CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.

Const. Mo. art. 10 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 273), relating to taxation, is applicable only to taxation in the ordinary acceptation of the term, and has no reference to special assessments.

3. SAME — UNIFORMITY — PROPORTION TO VALUE.

Const. art. 10, §§ 3, 4, 11 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 275, 278, 283), requiring taxes to be uniform on the same class of subjects within territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and that all property shall be taxed in proportion to value, does not apply to special assessments for local improvements.

4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — DUE PROCESS OF LAW — PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS — ASSESSMENTS.

St. Louis City Charter, art. 6, § 14 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4854), providing for the creation of special taxing districts for the levy of assessments for street improvements, etc., provides for a sufficient opportunity to property owners to be heard before the tribunal whose duty it is to ascertain the tax and levy the assessment, and therefore is not invalid as a deprivation of property without due process of law, no notice being required respecting those matters which the Legislature itself determines or delegates to the determination of the municipal authorities.

5. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS — ASSESSMENTS — BENEFITS.

Where a special assessment district has been fixed by valid legislation, and when the apportionment of the cost of a street improvement on the property in the district has been made, the owner of property assessed cannot object that his property has not been in fact benefited to the amount assessed in accordance with the apportionment.

6. SAME — NATURE OF CHARTER.

The charter of the city of St. Louis with respect to municipal matters, including special assessments for local improvements, has all the force and effect of an act of the Legislature.

7. SAME — BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT — "PARALLEL STREET."

St. Louis City Charter, art. 6, § 14 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4854), provides that an assessment district for street improvements shall be made by drawing a line midway between the street to be improved and the next parallel or converging street on either side of the street to be improved, which line shall be the boundary of the district, except as otherwise provided. Held, that a parallel street within such section is not required to be one which parallels the street being improved for the whole distance of the improvement, but that the district line must deflect according as the street is paralleled either in whole or in part by one street and partly by another.

8. SAME — DISTANCE.

St. Louis City Charter, art. 6, § 14 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4854), provides for the establishment of assessment districts for municipal improvements in accordance with parallel streets, and declares that, if there is no parallel or converging street on either side of the street to be improved, the district line shall be drawn 300 feet from and parallel to the street to be improved. Held, that a parallel street to form a boundary for an assessment district is not required to be at least within 600 feet of the street improved.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Moses N. Sale, Judge.

Action by the Fruin-Bambrick Construction Company against the St. Louis Shovel Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Rowell & Zumbalen, for appellant. Hamilton Grover, for respondent.

GRAVES, J.

The statement of the issues of this case is so succinctly made by learned counsel for the respondent that we borrow his language as far as it goes, thus: "This is a suit on special tax bill issued by the city of St. Louis for the proportionate cost of paving Sarah street, a thoroughfare running north and south, in said city. The respondent is the contractor who did the work, and the appellant is the owner of the property against which the tax bill is issued. No question is involved as to the passage of the ordinances, letting of the contract, doing of the work, and the issuance of the tax bill to the respondent. The sole issues grow out of the establishment of the taxing district under section 14, art. 6, St. Louis Charter (Ann. St. 1906, p. 4854). The taxing district was established by drawing a line midway between the street to be improved and the next parallel or converging street, without reference to whether or not the next parallel street was within 600 feet of the street to be improved, and without reference to whether or not the next parallel street was parallel to the street to be improved the whole length of the improvement. The appellant claims that the district established in this way is erroneous, on the theory that for a street to be the next parallel street within the meaning of the St. Louis Charter it must be the next street which parallels the street to be improved the whole length of the improvement, and upon the further theory that, for the street to be the next parallel street within the meaning of the St. Louis Charter, it must be within 600 feet of the street to be improved. The appellant further contends that section 14, art. 6, of the Charter, otherwise construed, would violate that clause of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits a state from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the `equal protection of the laws.' The lower court held that the district, as established by the city authorities, was properly laid out, and that it was not necessary that a street to be a parallel street should be the next street parallel to the improvement the whole length of the improvement, nor that it should be within 600 feet of the street to be improved. The lower court further held that the charter provision was not in violation of the `equal protection' clause of the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution. Judgment was entered for the respondent on the special tax bill, from which judgment, after the usual motions, defendant has appealed to this court."

The pertinent portions of the city charter involved — section 14, art. 6 — are as follows: "Special taxes for the improvement of streets, avenues and public highways shall be levied and assessed as follows: The total cost * * * shall be ascertained and one-fourth thereof shall be levied and assessed upon all property fronting upon or adjoining the improvements, in the proportion that the frontage of each lot, so fronting or adjoining, bears to the total aggregate of frontage of all lots or parcels of ground fronting upon or adjoining the improvement, and the remaining three-fourths of the cost so ascertained shall be levied and assessed as a special tax upon all the property in the district to be defined and bounded as hereinafter provided, in the proportion that the area of each lot or parcel of ground, or the part of such parcel of ground lying within the district bears to the total area of the district, exclusive of streets and alleys. The district herein referred to shall be established as follows: A line shall be drawn midway between the street to be improved and the next parallel or converging street on either side of the street to be improved, which line shall be the boundary of the district, except as hereinafter provided, viz.: If the property adjoining the street to be improved is divided into lots, the district line shall be so drawn as to include the entire depth of all lots fronting on the street to be improved. If the line drawn midway, as above described, would divide any lot lengthwise, or approximately lengthwise, and the average distance from the midway line so drawn to the nearest boundary line of the lot is less than 25 feet, the district line shall in such case diverge to and follow the said nearer boundary line. If there is no parallel or converging street on either side of the street to be improved, the district line shall be drawn three hundred feet from and parallel to the street to be improved; but if there be a parallel or converging street on the one side of the street to be improved to fix and locate the district line, then the district line on the other side shall be drawn parallel to the street to be improved and at the average distance of the opposite district line so fixed and located. Provided that if any property in a district established as herein provided is not liable to special assessment, the city shall pay the proportion of cost of the improvement which would have been assessed against such property. All of the property in the lots, blocks or tracts of lands lying between the street to be improved and the district lines established as above specified, shall constitute the district aforesaid."

The property of the defendant did not abut Sarah street, the street which was improved, but was 253 feet or more to the east thereof. Counsel for appellant correctly describes the metes and bounds of the district thus: "On the eastern side of said Sarah...