Hight v. City of Harrisonville

• Decision Date: 29 July 1931
• Citation: 41 S.W.2d 155,328 Mo. 549
• Parties: C. W. Hight, Walter B. Benn, C. D. Eidson, Charles Bird, Floyd E. McCord, Edgar R. Idol, George W. Johnson and Missouri Public Service Company v. City of Harrisonville; Lee Spicer, Mayor; P. K. Glenn, Del K. Hall, O. J. L. Brookhart and S. M. Wirt, Members of Board of Aldermen; C. v. Lynch, Clerk; J. L. White, Treasurer; J. F. Atkinson, v. J. Willett, H. S. Volle and L. A. James, Members of Board of Public Works, and Fairbanks, Morse & Company, Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

41 S.W.2d 155

328 Mo. 549

C. W. Hight, Walter B. Benn, C. D. Eidson, Charles Bird, Floyd E. McCord, Edgar R. Idol, George W. Johnson and Missouri Public Service Company v. City of Harrisonville; Lee Spicer, Mayor; P. K. Glenn, Del K. Hall, O. J. L. Brookhart and S. M. Wirt, Members of Board of Aldermen; C. v. Lynch, Clerk; J. L. White, Treasurer; J. F. Atkinson, v. J. Willett, H. S. Volle and L. A. James, Members of Board of Public Works, and Fairbanks, Morse & Company, Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 29, 1931

Appeal from Cass Circuit Court; Hon. Leslie A. Bruce Judge.

Affirmed.

Edward C. Crow, Allen B. Glenn and Bowersock, Fizzell & Rhodes for appellant.

(1) The plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain this action because their burden of taxation cannot be increased by reason of the contract in question. McQuillin on Municipal Corporations (2 Ed.), sec. 2751; 2 High on Injunctions (4 Ed.), sec. 1301; Wrightsman v. Gideon, 296 Mo. 214, 247 S.W. 135; Stocke v. Edwards, 295 Mo. 402, 244 S.W. 802; Shackleford v. Jefferson City, 167 Mo.App. 59, 150 S.W. 1123; Mayor of Gainesville v. Simmons, 96 Ga 477; Rice v. Indianapolis, 183 Ind. 203; Grecian v. Hill City, 123 Kan. 542, 256 P. 163; Morris v Gas Co., 121 La. 1016; Andrews v. South Haven, 187 Mich. 294, 153 N.W. 827; Kimmerle v. Village of Cassopolis, 160 Mich. 90, 125 N.W. 65; Reams v. Board of Mayor and Alderman, 291 S.W. 1067; Sayles v. City of Abilene, 196 S.W. 1000; Maxwell v. Smith, 87 Wash. 629, 152 P. 530; Bloomfield v. Thompson, 133 La. 209, 62 So. 634; Fellows v. Walker, 39 F. 651. (2) The city had power to enter into the contract in question. Secs. 8479, 9079, R. S. 1919; McQuillin on Municipal Corporations (2 Ed.), sec. 1212; Bell v. Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 356; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 273 Mo. 670, 202 S.W. 1; Evans v. McFarland, 186 Mo. 703; East Chicago Co. v. City of East Chicago, 171 Ind. 654; City of Columbus v. Public Utilities Commission, 103 Ohio St. 79, 133 N.E. 800; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Village of Wadsworth, 109 Ohio St. 440, 142 N.E. 900; Village of Oshkosh v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co., 8 F.2d 329; Johnston v. City of Stuart, 226 N.W. 164; City of Bardwell v. Engine & Boiler Works, 130 Ky. 222, 113 S.W. 97; Lang v. City of Cavalier, 228 N.W. 819; Carr v. Fenstermacher, 228 N.W. 114; Giles v. Dennison, 15 Okla. 55, 78 P. 174; Barnes v. Lehi City, 279 P. 878. (3) The contract does not constitute an indebtedness of the city in violation of Section 12, Article X, Missouri Constitution. Sec. 12a, Art. X, Missouri Constitution; State ex rel. v. Neosho, 203 Mo. 40; Bell v. Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 361; Shields v. City of Loveland, 74 Colo. 27, 218 P. 913; Franklin Trust Co. v. City of Loveland, 3 F.2d 114; Briggs v. Greenville County, 137 S.C. 288, 135 S.E. 153; Barnes v. Lehi City, 279 P. 878; Sec. 12, Art. X, Missouri Constitution; Sec. 1, Art. X, Missouri Constitution; Sec. 9105, R. S. 1919; United States v. Wright, 28 Fed. Cas. 789; State v. Commissioners, 4 Kan. 261; Webster v. People, 98 Ill. 343; Ayres v. Lawrence, 59 N.Y. 192; Secs. 9089, 9096, 9098, R. S. 1919; Tate v. City of Elberton, 136 Ga. 301; Brockenbrough v. Board of Water Commissioners, 134 N.C. 1; Uhler v. City of Olympia, 87 Wash. 1, 151 P. 117; Rice v. Milwaukee, 100 Wis. 516, 76 N.W. 341; Lang v. City of Cavalier, 228 N.W. 819; Freeland v. City of Sturgis, 248 Mich. 190, 226 N.W. 897; Board of Commissioners v. City of Fort Collins, 68 Colo. 364, 189 P. 929; Fox v. City of Bicknell, 193 Ind. 537, 141 N.E. 222; Klein v. Louisville, 224 Ky. 624, 6 S.W.2d 1104; Kasch v. Miller, 104 Ohio St. 281, 135 N.E. 813; Dean v. Walla Walla, 48 Wash. 75, 92 P. 895; Scott v. Tacoma, 81 Wash. 178, 142 P. 467; Schooley v. City of Chehalis, 84 Wash. 667, 147 P. 410; Twichell v. Seattle, 106 Wash. 32, 179 P. 127; Feil v. City of Coeur D'Alene, 23 Idaho 32, 129 P. 643; Lesser v. Warren Borough, 237 Pa. St. 501, 85 A. 839; Joliet v. Alexander, 194 Ill. 457; Lobdell v. Chicago, 227 Ill. 218; Schnell v. City of Rock Island, 232 Ill. 89; Leonard v. City of Metropolis, 278 Ill. 287, 115 N.E. 813; State ex rel. v. City of Portage, 174 Wis. 588, 184 N.W. 376; Bowling Green v. Kirby, 220 Ky. 839, 295 S.W. 1004; Shelton v. Los Angeles, 275 P. 421; Searle v. Town of Haxtun, 271 P. 629; Miller v. City of Buhl, 284 P. 843; Saleno v. Neosho, 127 Mo. 627; Lamar Water & Electric Light Co. v. Lamar, 140 Mo. 145. (4) The contract is valid as against the miscellaneous objections raised against its validity. (a) The contract does not require the city to maintain excessive or unreasonable rates. Bell v. Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 356; Lang v. City of Cavalier, 228 N.W. 819; Barnes v. Lehi City, 279 P. 878; Carr v. Fenstermacher, 228 N.W. 114. (b) The ordinance authorizing the execution of the contract does not constitute an appropriation ordinance within the meaning of Sec. 8466, R. S. 1919. Lamar Water & Electric Light Co. v. Lamar, 128 Mo. 188. (c) The contract does not take away from the city the control and operation of its municipal plant. Bell v. Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 356. (d) The contract is not void on the ground of indefiniteness or uncertainty. Bell v. Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 356; Johnson v. City of Stuart, 226 N.W. 164; Lang v. City of Cavalier, 228 N.W. 819; Carr v. Fenstermacher, 228 N.W. 114; Barnes v. Lehi City, 279 P. 878.

C. W. Hight, J. S. Brierly, D. C. Chastain and Sparrow & Patterson for respondents.

(1) The plaintiffs as citizens, taxpayers and users of electric current are entitled to maintain this action. Rutherford v. Taylor, 38 Mo. 315; Matthis v. Town of Cameron, 62 Mo. 504; Carson v. Sullivan, 284 Mo. 353; Castilo v. State Highway Comm., 279 S.W. 673; Civic League v. St. Louis, 223 S.W. 891; Bell v. Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 356; Sec. 1969, R. S. 1919. (2) The contract is invalid under the decision in the Fayette case. Bell v. Fayette, 28 S.W.2d 356; Schnell v. City of Rock Island, 83 N.E. 462; Feil v. City of Coeur D'Alene, 129 P. 643; City of Ottumwa v. City Water Supply Co., 119 F. 315; City of Dawson v. Waterworks Co., 32 S.E. 907; Village of Moline v. Pope, 79 N.E. 587; Voss v. Water Co., 71 N.E. 208; City of Logansport v. Jordan, 85 N.E. 959; Brown v. City of Corry, 34 A. 854. (3) The city had no statutory power to enter into the contract with Fairbanks-Morse & Company, Secs. 9079, 9122, R. S. 1919; Van-Eaton v. Town of Sidney, 231 N. W. (Ia.) 475; Ironwood Waterworks Co. v. City of Ironwood (Mich.), 58 N.W. 371; Feil v. City, supra; Hesse v. City of Watertown (S. D.), 232 N.W. 53. (a) A municipality has no implied power to engage in private business. 19 R. C. L. 788, par. 95; Kennedy v. City of Nevada, 281 S.W. 60; State ex rel. v. O'Rear, 277 Mo. 303, 210 S.W. 392; Laughlin v. Portland, 111 Me. 486; Annotated Cases, 1919C 734. (b) Powers granted a municipal corporation are to be strictly construed and doubtful powers resolved against it. Pierce City v. Hentchel, 210 S.W. 31; State ex inf. Channey v. West Mo. Power Co., 318 Mo. 283; Exter v. Kramer, 316 Mo.App. 468; State v. Butler, 178 Mo. 272; St. Louis v. Kaime, 180 Mo. 309. (c) Incidental powers of a municipal corporation means "indispensable" and not merely convenient powers. St. Louis v. Dreisoerner, 243 Mo. 217; St. Louis v. Bell Tel. Co., 96 Mo. 416; Independence v. Cleveland, 167 Mo. 384. (d) Specific methods of paying for electric plants being provided by statute such methods are exclusive. Tarkio v. Clark, 186 Mo. 285; Carthage v. Light Co., 97 Mo.App. 20; McKissick v. Mt. Pleasant Township, 48 Mo.App. 416; Glove Furniture Co. v. School Dist., 51 Mo.App. 549; Kolkmeyer & Co. v. City of Jefferson, 75 Mo.App. 678; Unionville v. Martin, 95 Mo.App. 28; Heidelberg v. St. Francois County, 100 Mo. 69; Dougherty v. Excelsior Springs, 110 Mo.App. 623; State ex rel. St. Louis Transfer Co. v. Clifford, 228 Mo. 194; Flinn v. Gillen, 10 S.W.2d 923; Keane v. Strodtman, 18 S.W.2d 896; State ex rel. Barlow v. Holtcamp, 14 S.W.2d 646. (4) Since the city proceeded under the Board of Public Works' plan it was required by the statute to submit the electrical plant proposal to the voters. Secs. 9097, 9122, R. S. 1919; Authorities under Point 3. (5) The contract is further void because it was not publicly let. Secs. 9097, 9107, 9111, R. S. 1919; Youman v. Everett, 173 Mo.App. 671. (6) The contract is void because the pledge orders will be warrants and there will be no funds in the city treasury at the time of their issuance for their payment. Sec. 8466, R. S. 1919; O'Dell v. Scranton, 126 Mo.App. 19. (7) The provisions in the contract concerning the operation of the electrical plant, the rates to be charged and the maturity of the pledge orders render the contract void. Secs. 10477, 10478, 10479, R. S. 1919; Renfroe v. City of Atlanta, 78 S.E. 449; State ex rel. v. Public Service Comm., 259 Mo. 704; State ex rel. Sedalia v. Public Service Comm., 275 Mo. 201; Hesse v. City of Watertown (S. D.), supra. (8) The decision in Bell v. City of Fayette overlooks and conflicts with prior decisions of this court and with statutory and constitutional provisions and we request the court to reexamine the question as to what constitutes a municipal indebtedness. Sec. 12, Art. 10, Constitution (Adopted Nov. 2, 1920); Lamar Waterworks Co. v. Lamar, 128 Mo. 188; Waterworks Co. v. Carterville, 142 Mo. 101; Book v. Earl, 87 Mo. 246; Barnard & Co. v. Knox Co., 105 Mo. 382. (9) In any event the contract is an evasion of the limitation on excessive indebtedness. State v. Griffin, 228 S.W. 800; Fairbanks-Morse & Co. v. Baskett, 98 Mo.App. 53; Reynolds v. City of Waterville (Me.), 42 A. 553.

Gantt, J. Atwood, C.J., and Frank and White, JJ., concur; Ragland, J., concurs in the result; Henwood and Ellison, JJ., not sitting.

OPINION

GANTT

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin performance of a contract executed by...