Holland v. City of St. Louis
| Decision Date | 09 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 43710,No. 2,43710,2 |
| Citation | 262 S.W.2d 1 |
| Parties | HOLLAND et al. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Kenneth Teasdale, St. Louis, Cobbs, Blake, Armstrong, Teasdale & Roos and Charles E. Dapron, Jr., St. Louis, of counsel, for appellants.
Albert Miller, St. Louis, for respondent.
BOHLING, Commissioner.
The members of the Civil Service Commission of the City of St. Louis, in their official capacity, instituted this action against the City of St. Louis for a declaratory judgment as to whether they have authority under Article XVIII of the City Charter to recommend a salary for any officer or employee of the city in the 'classified service' in excess of maximum of $10,000 per annum prescribed by Sec. 8 of Article VIII of said Charter. Plaintiffs appealed from an adverse judgment. The question of our jurisdiction has been presented. We briefly outline the Charter provisions considered material.
The Charter of the City of St. Louis was adopted in 1914. Revised Code, St. Louis, 1948, p. 10.
Article VIII of the Charter is entitled 'City Officers and Employees.'
Section 7 of Article VIII provides: * * *.'
Section 8 of Article VIII provides: '* * * Salaries fixed in this charter at a certain sum shall be construed to mean not less than such sum, but no salary under the city shall exceed ten thousand dollars per annum * * *.'
The purpose of new Article XVIII of the City Charter, adopted in 1941 to replace old Article XVIII, was to provide a modern and comprehensive system of personnel administration for the city (Secs. 2, 5), a true civil service system for the classified service of the city. The Mayor was authorized to appoint a Civil Service Commission of three members (Sec. 6) and a Director of Personnel (Sec. 8).
Section 1 of Article XVIII defines the terms used in said article. Subsection (b) provides: "City service' or 'service of the city' means all positions as herein defined, that are subject to control and regulation by the City of St. Louis as a municipal corporation or any of its officers or other agencies as such.' (Emphasis ours.) Subsection (d) provides: "Classified Service' means all positions in the city service except those specifically placed in the unclassified service as herein defined.' Subsection (m) provides: "Unclassified service' means all positions not subject to the provisions of the charter, ordinances and civil service rules relating exclusively to positions in the classified service,' naming members of boards and others in positions serving without compensation and officers and employees of the Board of Aldermen. As we read said Sec. 1, the classified service is divided into 'competitive' positions (Subsec. (f), and 'excepted' positions (Subsec. (h), that is, principally positions not subject to the provisions requiring competitive tests of fitness for appointment, as among others, positions filled by election by the people.
Under Sec. 7 the Commission is (a) to prescribe and amend, as occasion arises, rules for the administration and enforcement of the article and ordinances adopted in pursuance thereof; '(b) to recommend to the mayor and aldermen in accordance with this article, ordinances to provide for: (1) a compensation plan providing properly related scales of pay for all grades of positions, and rules for its interpretation and application; * * * (4) such other matters within the scope of this article as require action by the mayor and aldermen * * *.'
Section 4 of Article XVIII provides: 'The Mayor and Aldermen shall provide, by ordinance: (a) for adoption of a comprehensive compensation plan for the fixing of rates of pay of all employes in the classified service, and amendments thereto, on recommendation of the Civil Service Commission * * *.'
The civil service rules (Secs. 3, 7) and ordinances fixing the rates of pay of employees (Sec. 4) apply to positions in the 'classified service.'
Section 28 of Article XVIII provides: 'All provisions of the city charter and ordinances and rules thereunder, or parts thereof, inconsistent with this amendment, are hereby repealed.'
It is contended that we have jurisdiction by virtue of Sec. 3, Art. V, Mo.Const. V.A.M.S., fixing appellate jurisdiction here in civil cases where 'any county or other political subdivision of the state * * * is a party,' stressing the first two cases next mentioned.
Riley v. Holland, 362 Mo. 682, 243 S.W.2d 79, 80, was an action to review an order of the Civil Service Commission of the City of St. Louis finding that plaintiff had a definite term of office which had expired, and we accepted jurisdiction on the theory the city was a party in its governmental capacity, as a political subdivision of the State.
City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239, 206 S.W.2d 539, 545 [8 et seq.], involved a construction of Sec. 29, Art. I, of the Constitution of Missouri, which vested appellate jurisdiction in this court. The instant case, as did City of St. Louis v. Butler Co., 358 Mo. 1221, 219 S.W.2d 372, 373, 379[8-10], involves a construction of the St. Louis City Charter.
Our Courts of Appeals are courts of general appellate jurisdiction and this court is a court of limited appellate jurisdiction, having only such appellate jurisdiction as is specifically conferred by the Constitution of Missouri. Mo.Const., Art. V, Secs. 3, 13; State ex rel. Office of Civilian Defense Salvage Committee v. Horner, 353 Mo. 838, 184 S.W.2d 1002, 1003[2, 3]; Higgins v. Smith, 346 Mo. 1044, 144 S.W.2d 149. As a result, our appellate jurisdiction is to affirmatively appear from the record made in the trial court. It must rest on a matter or matters of substance, not merely of color, and may not be based on speculation and conjecture. Gruet Motor Car Co. v. Briner, Mo., 224 S.W.2d 73, 76; Little River Drainage District v. Houck, 282 Mo. 458, 461, 222 S.W. 384, 385; McManus v. Burrows, 280 Mo. 327, 217 S.W. 512, 515[4, 5]; Higgins v. Smith, supra. The pleadings continue to be of great utility in determining this issue. Gerber v. Schutte Inv. Co., 354 Mo. 1246, 194 S.W.2d 25, 28.
It stands determined that the City of St. Louis when a party to a civil action involving some municipal function (the same as other municipalities) is not acting as a 'county or other political subdivision of the state' so as to vest appellate jurisdiction here.
The fact that the City of St. Louis, in the operation and maintenance of city hospitals, exercises governmental or public functions does not vest appellate jurisdiction of an action to which the city is a party in this court, as in so acting the city discharges a municipal governmental function and not some governmental function of a county. McClellan v. City of St. Louis, Mo.App., 170 S.W.2d 131, 133[1-3], an action by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilderbrand v. Anderson
...v. Schutte Inv. Co., 354 Mo. 1246, 194 S.W.2d 25, 28. See also Linders v. Linders, 356 Mo. 852, 204 S.W.2d 229, 230(2); Holland v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 262 S.W.2d 1, 3. We are enjoined that 'all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice' (Section 509.250; DeVault v. Tr......
-
Sanderson v. Richardson
...jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to attach because of the amount in dispute, the record made in the trial court (Holland v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 262 S.W.2d 1, 3(2), 4(6); Barksdale v. Morris, Mo., 224 S.W.2d 84, 86(3); Yacobian v. J. D. Carson Co., Mo.App., 205 S.W.2d 921, 922(1)), as e......
-
City of Olivette v. Graeler
...is a court of general jurisdiction and the Supreme Court has that jurisdiction specifically conferred upon it. Holland v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 262 S.W.2d 1 at page 3; State ex rel. Thompson v. Roberts, Mo., 264 S.W.2d 314; Vogrin v. Forum Cafeterias of America, Inc., Mo.App., 301 S.W.2d ......
-
Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co. v. Manion
...v. Mueller, supra, 147 S.W.2d 670, 671; Superior Press Brick Co. v. City of St. Louis, supra, 152 S.W.2d 178, 183; Holland v. City of St. Louis, Mo.Sup., 262 S.W.2d 1, 4. Does the appeal involve 'the validity of * * * any authority exercised under the laws of the United States?' Appellants'......