Haeussler v. City of St. Louis.

• Decision Date: 02 July 1907
• Citation: 205 Mo. 656,103 S.W. 1034
• Parties: HAEUSSLER et al. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

103 S.W. 1034

205 Mo. 656

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

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July 2, 1907.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — BRIDGES — CONSTRUCTION — POWER OF CITY.

Const. 1875, art. 4, § 53 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 197], provides that the General Assembly shall not pass any local or special laws relating to bridges, except for the erection of bridges crossing streams forming boundaries between Missouri and any other state. Laws 1905, p. 94, authorizes cities of 100,000 inhabitants or over to build or acquire a bridge over boundary streams between Missouri and other states, and to acquire land for approaches therefor. Act Cong. June 25, 1906, c. 3539, 34 Stat. 461, authorizes the city of St. Louis to construct a bridge across the Mississippi river for railroad and general travel, and confers on the city the right of eminent domain for the acquisition of land for approaches thereto in Illinois, and Rev. St. Mo. 1899, § 6350 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 3184], in addition to St. Louis City Charter, art. 1, § 1 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4791], and article 3, § 26, par. 14 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4818], authorized the city to acquire property outside its limits for certain purposes and "for other purposes," and for public improvements, and to issue bonds for the construction of such improvements. Held, that the city was thereby expressly authorized to construct a bridge over the Mississippi river connecting the city with the opposite Illinois bank of the river, and to issue bonds not exceeding the city's constitutional debt limit to pay therefor.

2. SAME — PUBLIC HIGHWAY — MUNICIPAL PURPOSE.

A bridge such as that proposed, to be used both for railroad and general travel, was a public highway, and authorized as a legitimate public municipal purpose and a proper public improvement, though a portion thereof was necessarily beyond the city's corporate limits.

3. SAME — LOAN OF CREDIT.

The city of St. Louis having been authorized by charter, and by Laws 1905, p. 94, to construct a bridge for railroad and general purposes across the Mississippi river between the city and the state of Illinois, which bridge was to remain the property of the city and in its control, ordinances providing for the issuance of bonds to pay the cost of the bridge were not invalid under Const. 1875, art. 4, § 46 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 195], and article 9, § 6 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 259], prohibiting any grant of public money or funds to private individuals or associations, and prohibiting the lending of public credit to any corporation or the subscription by a municipality to the capital stock of any corporation or the making of a donation in aid thereof, because the city was authorized to grant a nonexclusive franchise to corporations to use a bridge when constructed.

4. SAME — BONDS.

Const. 1875, art. 10, § 12, as amended in 1902 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 287], authorizes the city of St. Louis at any time to issue bonds with the assent of the voters, to the amount, including outstanding indebtedness other than that specified, of 5 per cent. of the taxable property of the city, to be ascertained as provided, without limitation as to the purpose for which the bonds may be issued, and City Charter, art. 3, § 26, as amended June 23, 1903 [Ann. St. 1906. p. 4807], authorizes the city by ordinance to borrow money on the city's credit by the issuance and sale of bonds for such purpose as may be required for current expenses, and for such other purposes as may be authorized by the charter and the Constitution of the state. Held, that the city, being authorized to contract a debt for the construction of an interstate bridge across the Mississippi river, was authorized to issue negotiable bonds either in the form of coupon or registered bonds, or both, for money borrowed to pay the cost of the bridge.

In Banc. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wm. M. Kinsey, Judge.

Suit by Herman A. Haeussler and another against the city of St. Louis and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

I. H. Lionberger and Chas. S. Reber, for appellants. Chas. W. Bates, Benj. H. Charles, E. C. Crow, C. F. Ziebold, and Rassieur, Schnurmacher & Rassieur, for respondents.

GRAVES, J.

Plaintiffs, resident taxpayers of the city of St. Louis, for themselves, and for other taxpayers of said city who may choose to join them, bring their action in equity to restrain the city of St. Louis and the other defendants, Wells, Player, and Franciscus, who are, respectively, the mayor, comptroller, and treasurer of said city, to enjoin the issuance and sale of 3,500 negotiable bonds of the city of St. Louis, of the denomination of $1,000, and each numbered, respectively, from 1 to 3,500, inclusive, which bonds they charge the defendants are threatening to issue under and by virtue of a so-called authority given to defendants by an ordinance of said city numbered 22,674, and entitled: "An ordinance declaring the result of the special election called by ordinance number twenty-two thousand three hundred and sixty-six, held on June twelfth, nineteen hundred and six, and directing the issue of bonds of the city of St. Louis in the sum of eleven million two hundred thousand dollars as authorized by the vote at said election." The particular bonds, the validity of which is questioned in this proceeding, are described in section 5 of the ordinance aforesaid, thus: "Sec. 5, Said bonds shall have engraved thereon the words `Saint Louis Public Buildings and Public Improvement Bonds,' and shall be numbered consecutively from one to eleven thousand two hundred, both inclusive. The bonds and the proceeds from the sale of the respective bonds shall be used exclusively for the following separate purposes, to wit: One, bonds numbered from one to thirty-five hundred, both inclusive, (three million five hundred thousand dollars) and the proceeds from the sale thereof, shall be used for the construction and maintenance of a municipal bridge for public use by railroads, street cars, vehicles of all kinds and pedestrians over and across the Mississippi river, and for the purchase of land to be used for approaches thereto." The whole issue of $11,200,000, as provided for by this ordinance, is for nine different public purposes; all being for public improvements of some kind. Each of the other eight issues are described in section 5 of the ordinance, in a manner similar to the description of the bonds in question, hereinabove set out. The ordinance in other sections declares the result of the election called by ordinance No. 22,366 and held June 12, 1906, authorizes the issuance and sale of $11,200,000 bonds, including the $3,500,000 questioned in this suit, provides the form of the bonds and coupons and how signed and attested, and for the payment of the principal and interest of said bonds, and to that end makes provision for a sinking fund out of which to pay the principal. To provide the payments of interest and the creation of this sinking fund an annual tax is authorized.

The plaintiffs, by their petition, attack the validity of these bonds in this language: "That the city of St. Louis has no power or authority to use its credit, or to issue its bonds, or to levy and collect taxes, for any such purpose, for that said bonds and such use thereof are prohibited by the Constitution and laws of the state of Missouri and the charter of the city of St. Louis, in the following particulars: Said proposed bonds, together with the existing indebtedness of the city, will in the aggregate exceed 5 per cent. of the value of the taxable property therein, to wit: Section 6 of article 9 of the Constitution [Ann. St. 1906, p. 259] provides that no city shall make any appropriation or donation, or loan its credit to or in aid of any railroad or other corporation or association, and section 47 of article 4 of said Constitution [Ann. St. 1906, p. 195] provides that the General Assembly of the state of Missouri shall have no power to authorize any city to lend its credit or to grant public money or any thing of value in aid of or to any individual, association, or corporation whatsoever; but, notwithstanding said provisions of the Constitution aforesaid, the city of St. Louis and the officers herein made parties defendant propose, pursuant to and in compliance with the terms of said ordinance, to issue the bonds hereinbefore mentioned, and to use the proceeds thereof to construct a bridge across the Mississippi river which will and must be, under said ordinance, so designed and made that a part thereof, of great cost, will be set apart and appropriated to the sole and exclusive use and benefit of railroad corporations, and thereby to lend the credit of the said city and grant public money and property in aid of such corporations. Paragraph 1 of section 26 of article 3 of the Charter of the City of St. Louis [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4807], as amended the 23d day of June, A. D. 1903, provides that negotiable bonds of the city in the form of coupon bonds or registered bonds, or both, or coupon bonds with the privilege of registration, may be issued from time to time within the limits prescribed by the Constitution of this state in force at the time, for any one or more of the following purposes, to wit: (5) for the construction, reconstruction, and extension of bridges and viaducts and the purchase of land for such purposes; but, notwithstanding the provision of the charter aforesaid, the city of St. Louis and the officers herein made parties defendant propose to issue the bonds aforesaid not only for the construction, reconstruction, and extension of a bridge beyond the limits of said city, but for the maintenance thereof, and to thereby appropriate the proceeds of bonds in a manner not authorized by the charter of the city of St. Louis. That plaintiffs are without adequate remedy at law, and that the mayor, comptroller, and treasurer, aforesaid, unless restrained by this honorable court, will issue and sell...