Haeussler v. City of St. Louis

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

103 S.W. 1034

205 Mo. 656

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

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 2, 1907

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Wm. M. Kinsey Judge.

Affirmed.

I. H Lionberger and Charles S. Reber for appellants.

(1) A municipal corporation has no power to borrow money and issue its negotiable bonds for corporate purposes, unless authority to do so be expressed in its charter or necessarily implied as being essential to carry into effect powers which are expressly granted. Barnet v. City of Denison, 145 U.S. 135; City of Breakam v. Bank, 144 U.S. 173; Luther v. Wheeler, 4 L. R. A. 750; sec. 10, art. 5 Charter; St. Louis v. Telephone Co., 96 Mo. 623; Joplin v. Leckie, 78 Mo.App. 8. (2) The Act of 1905 (Laws 1905, p. 94), while it authorizes all cities in the State having one hundred thousand inhabitants or over to build or purchase a bridge for public use by railroads street cars, vehicles and pedestrians over a river forming a boundary between this and other States, and to acquire, use and retain land, etc., for approaches to such bridge, does not authorize any city to utter bonds for the purpose of constructing or purchasing such a bridge. (3) Section 26, article 3, paragraph 5 of the charter as amended in 1903 provides that the Mayor and assembly shall have power within the city, by ordinance not inconsistent with the Constitution or any law of this State, or this charter, to borrow money on the credit of the city by the issue or sale of bonds for the construction, reconstruction and extension of bridges and viaducts and the purchase of land for such purposes. Such paragraph obviously contemplates the construction of bridges and viaducts within the city and cannot be properly construed to authorize the issue of bonds for the construction of bridges outside of the city of St. Louis. Power to build a bridge outside of the city did not then exist. (4) Paragraph first of section 26, article 3, confers upon the city of St. Louis power to borrow money and issue bonds for "such other purposes as may be authorized by this charter or by the Constitution of this State in force at the time." Assuming that the fifth paragraph is to be construed as authorizing the construction of bridges and viaducts within the city, the charter nowhere else in terms authorizes the issue of bonds for the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi river and partly without the limits of the city of St. Louis. The general law of 1905 was not in force when the foregoing provisions of the charter of St. Louis were adopted by the people of the city, and while it confers upon all cities of the first class power to construct bridges across the river, it does not require any city to construct such a bridge; so that it is competent for the city of St. Louis, notwithstanding such act, to by its own charter withhold the power to construct such a bridge from its municipal authorities. Nothing in the charter itself of St. Louis either authorizes or requires the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi river, and nothing in the Constitution of the State confers such authority. (5) Paragraph 9 of section 26, article 3 of the charter, while it authorizes the borrowing of money and the issue of bonds for the construction of any other public improvement of a permanent character which the city is or may be authorized or permitted under its charter to construct, confers no greater authority than is conferred by paragraph first of the same section, inasmuch as the charter nowhere in terms authorizes the construction of a bridge across a river outside of the city limits. (6) An act which permits a city to construct a municipal bridge outside of the State which creates it, and beyond the power and jurisdiction of its creator, is unconstitutional. Becker v. LaCross, 99 Wis. 414, 40 L. R. A. 829; Schuder v. Wenasha, 118 Wis. 298. (7) The ordinance under which the bonds sought to be enjoined are proposed to be issued authorizes bonds to be uttered not only for the construction of a bridge across the river, but for its maintenance. Power to utter bonds for the construction or reconstruction of a bridge is not broad enough to confer power to issue bonds for its maintenance. The maintenance of a bridge is not a public improvement of a permanent character. Chillicothe case, 200 Mo. 97; Verdin v. St. Louis, 131 Mo. 26. The issue and use of the proceeds of city bonds in order to provide for the exclusive use and benefit of railroad companies separate approaches to a bridge across the river, of great cost and value, and a separate part of the bridge structure itself, whether of one platform constructed for all other uses, or a separate and distinct platform, will result in the appropriation by the city of St. Louis of something of value to railroad corporations, and to the lending of the credit of the city in aid of railroad corporations, within the meaning of the Constitution of this State.

Charles W. Bates, Benjamin H. Charles, E. C. Crow, C. F. Ziebold and Rassieur, Schnurmacher & Rassieur for respondents.

(1) The city has the power to construct and maintain a bridge across the Mississippi river. Laws 1905, p. 94; Acts of Congress of June 25, 1906, and March 23, 1906; charter of St. Louis, art I, sec. I; art. 3, sec. 26, par. 14. The bridge which the city expects to build under the provisions of Ordinances 22366 and 22674 is the kind of a bridge authorized by the Act of the Legislature of April 6, 1905. (See Proposition I in sec. 4 of Ordinance 22366, and sec. 5 of Ordinance 22674, and compare the same with the Act of 1905.) (a) The construction and maintenance of a bridge are peculiarly within the sphere of municipal activity. It is a municipal purpose. It is a "city" purpose. It is a "work of internal improvement." It is a public improvement. Chapter 84, R. S. 1899 (illustrating policy of the State to consider bridges as parts of highways); Charter of St. Louis, art. 3, sec. 26, Par. 2; 1 Dillon on Mun. Corp. (4 Ed.), sec. 510, pp. 577 and 578; Dodge County v. Chandler, 96 U.S. 205; U. S. v. Dodge County, 110 U.S. 162; South St. Paul v. Lamprecht, 88 F. 449; Angell on Highways, sec. 38; Elliott on Roads & Streets, p. 21. Bridges are regarded as public highways. 3 Abbott on Mun. Corp., sec. 1024, p. 2318; County Comrs. v. Chandler, 96 U.S. 209; Elliott on Roads & Streets, p. 21. The Act of 1905 and both the ordinances, 22366 and 22674, declare that this bridge is to be for "public use." A public bridge is part of a highway. 4 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 920; McPheeters v. Bridge Co., 28 Mo. 467; 2 Abbott on Mun. Corp., sec. 422. That the law holds municipalities to the proper care, repair and maintenance of highways, including bridges, see: Jordan v. Hannibal, 87 Mo. 673; Walker v. Kansas City, 99 Mo. 647; Walker v. Point Pleasant, 49 Mo.App. 244; see also, St. Louis Charter, art. 3, sec. 26, par. 2. (b) The Legislature may authorize cities to extend their activities and to hold and manage property beyond their borders. Hafner v. St. Louis, 161 Mo. 42; Chambers v. St. Louis, 29 Mo. 375; South St. Paul v. Lamprecht, 88 F. 454; People ex rel. v. Kelly (Brooklyn Bridge Case), 76 N.Y. 475; Matter of Mayor of New York, 99 N.Y. 569; Pittsburg v. Brace, 158 Pa. St. 174; Minnesota Land Co. v. Billings, 111 F. 972; Newman v. Ashe, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 380. (c) Under the power to regulate commerce among the States, Congress may authorize, and by Act of June 25, 1906, has authorized, the city of St. Louis to construct the bridge across the Mississippi river, and to that end to acquire by purchase or condemnation the necessary property in both Illinois and Missouri. Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525. And by its charter provisions the city has the power of eminent domain within its territorial limits. Charter, art. 6, sec. 12. (2) The power to construct and maintain this bridge having been expressly conferred upon the city, it is expressly authorized to issue its bonds therefor. Sec. 12, art. 10 of the Constitution of Missouri, as amended at the general election held in November, 1902. (Laws 1901, pp. 264, 265); Charter of St. Louis, art. 3, sec. 26, 1st paragraph, as amended by the charter amendment election held October 22, 1901, and as further amended at the election held June 23, 1903; sections 6350-6354, inclusive, R. S. 1899, art. 13, chap. 91. (3) The construction and maintenance of this municipal bridge by the city of St. Louis is not the giving of aid to any individual or corporation, nor is it otherwise in violation of any constitutional prohibition. Sun Printing & Publishing Assn. v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 152 N.Y. 257, 37 L. R. A. 788; Printz v. Crocker, 166 Mass. 347, 32 L. R. A. 610; Brooks v. Philadelphia, 162 Pa. St. 123; South St. Paul v. Lamprecht, 88 F. 454; Walker v. Cincinnati, 21 Ohio St. 14; Pleasant Township v. Ins. Co., 138 U.S. 74; County Court v. Griswold, 58 Mo. 175; Garrolt v. Moberly, 103 U.S. 580. (4) "The General Assembly of the State of Missouri" has the same legislative power over the city of St. Louis as it has over any other portion of the State. Its power is not limited in the least by the constitutional provisions authorizing the city of St. Louis to frame and enact its own charter. Constitution, art. 4, sec. 1; art. 9, secs. 20, 23, 25; State ex rel. v. Mason, 152 Mo. 52; Kansas City v. Stigmiller, 151 Mo. 204; State ex rel. v. Walton, 69 Mo. 566; Spalding v. Brady, 128 Mo. 653; State ex rel. v. Higgins, 125 Mo. 364; Kenefick v. St. Louis, 127 Mo. 1; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 75; State ex rel. v. Ossley, 122 Mo. 68; State ex rel. v. Mason, 155 Mo. 486; State ex rel. v. Board of Education, 141 Mo. 45; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 117 Mo. 12; State ex rel. v. Bell, 119 Mo. 70; State ex rel. v....