Galloso v. City of Sikeston.

• Decision Date: 16 April 1907
• Citation: 101 S.W. 715,124 Mo. App. 380
• Parties: GALLOSO v. CITY OF SIKESTON.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

101 S.W. 715

124 Mo. A. 380

GALLOSO v. CITY OF SIKESTON.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 16, 1907.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—USE AND REGULATION OF STREETS.

The streets of the city are dedicated to the use of the public, and cannot be occupied by a private individual for the purposes of trade, and no officer of a city has the right to grant a license for such purpose.

2. SAME — GRANTS FOR USES OTHER THAN HIGHWAY.

A license by a city to one to carry on his trade as a street vender does not entitle him to maintain a stand on a sidewalk and in the street of the city, and the city cannot be held liable for removing the same.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Scott County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Action by Peter Galloso against the city of Sikeston. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed. Reversed.

M. G. Gresham, for appellant.

BLAND, P. J.

Omitting caption and signatures, the following are the pleadings: "Plaintiff states that on July 5, 1905, at the city of Sikeston, in the county of Scott, state of Missouri, the defendant, by means of its regularly constituted authorities, without leave, and wrongfully, took the following property of the plaintiff, and has not returned the same—that is to say, a lunch stand—by which the plaintiff says he is damaged to the amount of $50, for which he asks judgment. Plaintiff further states that on July 1, 1905, the defendant, for the sum of $2.50, which plaintiff then and there paid to defendant, issued and delivered to plaintiff a license which authorized and gave permission to plaintiff to carry on the business of a street vender, in and upon the streets of defendant, for the period of three months from said date, and that on the said 5th day of July defendant served notice on plaintiff that he would not thereafter be permitted to carry on and conduct his said business of a street vender, and by means of the wrongfully taking away of his lunch stand as aforesaid deprived the plaintiff of the privileges of conducting his said business by which the plaintiff says he is damaged to the amount of two hundred dollars, for which he asks judgment. Now comes the mayor and marshal in above-entitled cause by their attorney and acknowledge having removed the lunch stand of the plaintiff from the streets of the city of Sikeston, but deny the plaintiff had any right to erect a lunch stand upon said streets of the city of Sikeston and as a trespasser and maintainer of a nuisance upon said streets of the city...