In re Spring Valley Park in Kansas City

• Decision Date: 24 December 1907
• Parties: In re SPRING VALLEY PARK IN KANSAS CITY. BUCHANAN et al. v. KANSAS CITY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

106 S.W. 531

208 Mo. 674

In re SPRING VALLEY PARK IN KANSAS CITY BUCHANAN et al. v. KANSAS CITY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 24, 1907.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — ASSESSMENTS — DATE OF LIEN.

Even if Kansas City Charter 1889, art. 10, § 20, declaring the assessments for benefits liens from the passage of the ordinance in pursuance of which they are made and the condemnation proceedings for a parkway instituted, be unconstitutional, the judgment relates back to the commencement of the proceedings, and from that time the assessments are a lien.

2. SAME — PROPERTY SUBJECT TO LIEN.

Where land, on which assessments for benefits from a parkway are a lien, is condemned for a park, the lien of the assessments continues against the land till title thereto is devested out of the owner by payment of the award for the condemnation thereof, and on this being paid into court, in the condemnation proceedings, attaches thereto.

3. SAME — ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS.

Where the award for condemnation of land, on which assessments for benefits are liens, is paid into court, in the proceedings for the benefit of whoever may be entitled to it, such court may enforce the lien of the assessment against such fund.

4. SAME — ASSESSMENTS — ABATEMENT.

An assessment for benefits from a parkway does not abate because of the land against which it is assessed being years afterwards condemned for a park.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Jas. H. Slover, Judge.

Intervening petition by Elizzie W. Buchanan and another against Kansas City, filed in the matter of the condemnation of land for opening and establishing a public park in the South Park district in Kansas City, known as "Spring Valley Park," under Ordinance of said city No. 18,269. From an adverse judgment, the city appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Edwin C. Meservey, Wm. A. Knotts, and Ed. E. Yates, for appellant. Scarritt, Griffith & Jones, for respondents.

GANTT, J.

This is an action on the part of Elizzie W. Buchanan and Bettie P. Turner commenced in the circuit court of Jackson county on the 24th day of June, 1903, to obtain an order on the clerk of the said court to pay over to them a certain fund of $350, which had been deposited with him by order of the court for the use of the petitioners, or whoever might be entitled thereto, being a part of the certain sum of $8,000 which had been adjudged to the said plaintiffs for a certain tract of land that had been taken and condemned for public use as a park by Kansas City under Ordinance 18,269 of Kansas City. It appears by the petition of the plaintiffs that a proceeding to condemn a parkway in South Park district in Kansas City, Mo., was instituted on the 12th day of December, 1899; that under this proceeding the property in controversy herein was assessed and taxed, and the fund representing such assessment and tax was afterwards paid into court. As alleged in the petition, a proceeding was instituted on the 11th day of March, 1902, to open and establish a park in said South Park district, under which latter proceeding the property described in the petition was condemned and taken, and the title thereof subsequently confirmed and vested in the city. The petition alleges that the earlier proceeding to open and establish a parkway, which is known as the "South Paseo extension," was carried through the court to a conclusion thereof, and the property of respondents assessed for benefits therefor, and the tax in controversy, to wit, $301.48, represented by the fund paid in the court, apportioned against the property described in said petition; that the latter proceeding was for establishing a park in South Park district known as "Spring Valley park." In the latter proceeding the value of the property was assessed at $8,000, $7,650 of which was paid to the plaintiffs herein, and the balance of $350 was paid into court on account of the claim of the defendant (Kansas City) that it should be applied to the payment of the South Paseo extension park tax. After the payment of the said fund into court, the plaintiffs filed their said intervening petition in said cause, asking the court to direct the clerk to pay the said fund to them. Kansas City filed its demurrer to said petition, alleging as grounds therefor that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that petition was otherwise insufficient in law. This demurrer was heard and overruled by the circuit court; and, Kansas City refusing to plead further and electing to stand upon its demurrer, final judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, and from that judgment Kansas City in due form appealed, and the court allowed the appeal to the Kansas City Court of Appeals, and that court has certified the appeal to this court on the ground that the cause involves the construction of article 2, §§ 20, 21, and 30, of the Constitution of Missouri [Ann. St. 1906, pp. 146, 148, 166], and the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

1. The only question before this court is whether or not the petition of the plaintiffs states facts sufficient to sustain the order and judgment of the circuit court awarding them the fund of $350. It appears from the petition that prior to the commencement of the condemnation proceeding under Ordinance 18,269 to establish a park in the South Park district in Kansas City, Mo., which is known as "Spring Valley park," on the 8th of October, 1901, another proceeding had previously been begun, to wit, a condemnation proceeding commonly known as the "South Paseo extension," whereby the tract of land belonging to the plaintiffs, and referred to as tract No. 93 in said proceeding, was assessed and charged with $301.48 payable in 20 annual installments, to pay, in part, the purchase price of the parkway known as the "South Paseo extension," the first installment of which become due and payable on the 31st of May, 1903. It appears that the verdict in this lastnamed proceeding was filed and confirmed on September 14, 1901, and that motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed by various parties in said proceeding which were overruled and an appeal duly prosecuted...