Green v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 09 November 1891
• Citation: 17 S.W. 496,106 Mo. 454
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: GREEN et al. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

17 S.W. 496

106 Mo. 454

GREEN et al. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 9, 1891.

CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS — COMPENSATION TO COMMISSIONERS — APPEAL — HARMLESS ERROR.

1. Under a city charter, providing that, in court proceedings to condemn land for public use, "the commissioners may be allowed a reasonable compensation for their services," a municipal ordinance, fixing such compensation at three dollars per day, is invalid. SHERWOOD, C. J., and BLACK, J., dissenting.

2. When a court allows compensation at the rate claimed by a commissioner, the latter is not in position to complain that that rate was unreasonably low.

3. Parties to litigation are generally bound by the positions they assume therein.

4. If a court's ruling is correct in result, it is immaterial whether it was reached by correct or erroneous considerations.

5. Where error is affirmatively shown to be harmless, it constitutes no ground for a reversal.

(Syllabus by Barclay, J.)

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; DANIEL DILLON, Judge.

Condemnation proceedings by the city of St. Louis. One Green, who was one of the commissioners appointed to assess the damages, appeals from an allowance made him by the court as compensation for his services. Affirmed.

Jas. & Chas. S. Taussig, for appellant. W. C. Marshall, City Counselor, for respondent.

BARCLAY, J.

This controversy is between Mr. Green and the city of St. Louis. It arises in a statutory proceeding to open Nebraska avenue, in which the city was plaintiff and other parties were the original defendants. For convenience of treatment this case is entitled as above. Mr. Green was one of the commissioners appointed by the circuit court, in accordance with the city charter, to assess the damages and benefits incident to opening the avenue mentioned. Rev. St. 1889, p. 2120, §§ 4, 5. He has appealed in due form from the allowance made to him by the court as compensation for his services. The specific provision of law applicable is as follows: "The costs of the proceedings, up to and including the filing of the report of the commissioners, shall be paid by the city, and as to any cost caused by subsequent litigation the cost shall be paid by the losing party. The commissioners may be allowed a reasonable compensation for their services." Rev. St. 1889, p. 2121, § 8. Further than this, the following had been formally passed as a municipal ordinance before this case arose, viz.: "In all proceedings to establish, open, widen, or alter any street, avenue, alley, or wharf, the commissioners appointed by the circuit court shall be entitled to have and receive from the city treasury for their services as such the sum of three dollars for each day's services in the case." Rev. Ord. St. Louis, 1887, p. 679, § 660.

1. At the hearing of the claim of the commissioners the court received and considered the proofs submitted by them, touching the time consumed in the assessment of damages and benefits, but, on objection by the city counselor, refused to enter into the subject of the reasonable value of their services in that behalf, holding that the ordinance last aforesaid was controlling on that point. The charter contemplates that the commissioners shall receive a "reasonable compensation." This provision is intended, not for the protection...