Heinrich v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 10 December 1894
• Citation: 125 Mo. 424,28 S.W. 626
• Parties: HEINRICH v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

28 S.W. 626

125 Mo. 424

HEINRICH v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 10, 1894.

MUNICIPALITIES — VACATION OF PUBLIC STREET — DAMAGES TO ABUTTING OWNERS — DEFENSES — MEASURE OF DAMAGES.

1. A city is liable in damages to abutting owners for a depreciation in the value of their property consequent upon an ordinance vacating a public street.

2. It is no defense, to an action against a city for damages to an abutting owner from an ordinance vacating a public street, that such owner still has direct access to his property by another street.

3. The measure of damages, in an action by an abutting property owner against the city to recover damages from the vacation of a public street, is the difference between the value of his property before such action and its value afterwards, with the land formerly subject to the street easement added to it.

Appeal from and error to St. Louis circuit court; Daniel Dillon, Judge.

Action by John Heinrich against the city of St. Louis to recover damages for the depreciation in value of a certain piece of plaintiff's property as the result of defendant's ordinance vacating the street on which it abutted. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals, and plaintiff also brings error. Affirmed.

C. P. & J. D. Johnson, for plaintiff. W. C. Marshall, for defendant.

BLACK, C. J.

The plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land in the city of St. Louis, 200 feet in length from north to south, and 53 feet wide, measuring at right angles to the side lines. The north end fronts on what was formerly Olive street. That street ran in a southeast and northwest direction, so that the lot had a front of 60 feet, measuring along the south line of Olive street. The south end of the lot does not front on any street. The west side line extends along the east line of Taylor avenue. There is also an alley running east and west across the lot. In March, 1890, the city, by an ordinance duly enacted, vacated a part of Olive street, including therein the part on which the plaintiff's property abutted. This is a suit to recover the damages sustained because of a depreciation in the value of the property, caused by the action of the city in vacating that part of Olive street. The court gave judgment for plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed. Plaintiff sued out a writ of error. The two cases will be treated as one, the same as in case of cross appeals.

The municipal assembly of the city of St. Louis has the power conferred upon it to vacate streets and alleys, and it is for the assembly, and not the courts, to say when that power shall be exercised. As the city has this power, it is insisted on its behalf that the vacation of one street affords no ground of complaint where the property owner still has access to his property by another street or alley, and hence the defendant's demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. Though the city has the right and power to vacate streets when and where its legislative body shall deem best for the public good, still it does not follow that the city is not liable for damage resulting to abutting property owners, arising from the exercise of...