Kammeyer v. City of Concordia, 38746.

• Citation: 179 S.W.2d 76
• Decision Date: 03 April 1944
• Docket Number: No. 38746.,38746.
• Parties: HENRY J. KAMMEYER ET AL., Appellants, v. CITY OF CONCORDIA, MISSOURI, a Municipal Corporation, et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

179 S.W.2d 76 HENRY J. KAMMEYER ET AL., Appellants,
v.
CITY OF CONCORDIA, MISSOURI, a Municipal Corporation, et al. No. 38746. Supreme Court of Missouri. Division One, April 3, 1944.

Appeal from Clay Circuit Court. — Hon. James S. Rooney, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

Raymond E. Martin and W. Raleigh Gough for appellants.

(1) The participation of Herbert F. Duensing in the contract rendered the tax bills void. Sec. 4798, R.S. 1939; 46 C.J. 1037-1038 (Secs. 308-309); 43 C.J. 714 (Sec. 1197); 2 Dillon, Munic. Corp., Sec. 773; 6 Williston, Contracts, 4895 (Sec. 1735); State ex rel. Streif v. White (Mo. App.), 282 S.W. 147; State ex rel. Smith v. Bowman, 184 Mo. App. 549, 170 S.W. 700; Nodaway County v. Kidder, 344 Mo. 795, 129 S.W. (2d) 857, 861 (12), 862 (21); Githens v. Butler County (Mo. Sup.), 165 S.W. (2d) 650, 652 (1-3); Sec. 7206, R.S. 1939; Sec. 7182, R.S. 1939; City of Jackson v. Houck (Mo. App.), 43 S.W. (2d) 908, 911 (5); Gast v. Langston (Mo. App.), 15 S.W. (2d) 353, 356 (4); Gratz v. Kirkwood, 182 Mo. App. l.c. 589, 166 S.W. 319. (2) The proceedings antedating the letting of the contract were so far deficient as to render the contract void. Sec. 7403, R.S. 1939 (Laws 1939, p. 848); Sec. 7182, R.S. 1939; Galbreath v. Newton, 30 Mo. App. l.c. 394; Clapton v. Taylor, 49 Mo. App. l.c. 126; Excelsior Springs v. Ettenson, 120 Mo. App. l.c. 223-224, 96 S.W. 703; Thrasher v. City of Kirksville (Mo. Sup.), 204 S.W. 804; McCormick v. Moore, 134 Mo. App. 669, 114 S.W. 40; City of Independence v. Nagle, 134 Mo. App. 601, 114 S.W. 1129; Haegele v. Mallinckrodt, 46 Mo. 577; Kansas City ex rel. Neill v. Askew, 105 Mo. App. 84, 79 S.W. 483; McQuire v. Wilson (Mo. App.), 187 S.W. 612; Youmans v. Everett, 173 Mo. App. 671, 160 S.W. 274; Hillig v. City of St. Louis, 337 Mo. 291, 85 S.W. (2d) 91; Heman v. Gilliam, 171 Mo. 258, 71 S.W. 163; Excelsior Springs v. Ettenson, 120 Mo. App. 215, 96 S.W. 701; City of Maplewood v. Martha Inv. Co. (Mo. App.), 267 S.W. 63; Hund v. Rackliffe, 192 Mo. 312, 91 S.W. 500; McCoy v. Randall, 222 Mo. 24, 121 S.W. 31; Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Hayward, 248 Mo. 280, 154 S.W. 140. (3) The delay in performance of the contract invalidated the tax bills. Neill v. Gates, 152 Mo. 585, 54 S.W. 460; Hund v. Rackliffe, 192 Mo. 312, 91 S.W. 500; McCoy v. Randall, 222 Mo. 24, 121 S.W. 31; Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Hayward, 248 Mo. 280, 154 S.W. 140; Paul v. Burress, 152 Mo. App. 39, 132 S.W. 330; Paxton v. Bonner, 172 Mo. App. 479, 157 S.W. 986; Casteel v. Dearmont, 221 Mo. App. 1217, 299 S.W. 816. (4) There were numerous miscellaneous defects in the proceedings leading up to the issuance of the tax bills. Secs. 7533 and 7534, R.S. 1939. (5) The conspiracy to stifle and prevent free competitive bidding and the actions taken thereunder render the tax bills void. Ruckles v. Pryor, 351 Mo. 819, 174 S.W. 2d 185; Sec. 4483, R.S. 1939. (6) The city was properly joined as a party defendant. All necessary parties were in the case. Sec. 1136, R.S. 1939. (7) The court had jurisdiction of the case as an action for a declaratory judgment. The availability of relief in some other "general" type of proceeding is no objection to a declaratory action. Secs. 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129, 1130 and 1137, R.S. 1939; State ex rel. K.C. Bridge Co. v. Terte, 345 Mo. 95, 131 S.W. (2d) 587; State ex rel. Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Padberg, 346 Mo. 1133, 145 S.W. (2d) 150; State ex rel. Clay County State Bank v. Waltner, 346 Mo. 1138, 145 S.W. (2d) 152; Borchard on Declaratory Judgments, pp. 315, 317-327-331, 342-346; Woollard v. Schaffer Stores Co., Inc., 272 N.Y. 304, 5 N.E. (2d) 829; "Declaratory Judgments: Experience Under the Uniform Act," Laurance M. Hyde, 26 Washington U. Law Quarterly 468; Sec. 1131, R.S. 1939. (8) A declaratory action will lie to determine validity as well as to obtain a construction. Secs. 1126 and 1127, R.S. 1939; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Jones, 344 Mo. 932, 130 S.W. (2d) 945; Vincent Realty Co. v. Brown, 344 Mo. 438, 126 S.W. (2d) 1162; State ex rel. K.C. Bridge Co. v. Terte, 345 Mo. 95, 131 S.W. (2d) 587; School District of K.C. v. Smith, 342 Mo. 21, 111 S.W. (2d) 167. (9) The availability of the remedy is not defeated because "fact questions" will have to be determined. "Declaratory Judgments: Experience Under the Uniform Act," Laurance M. Hyde, 26 Washington U. Law Quarterly 468; State ex rel. Clay County State Bank v. Waltner, 346 Mo. 1138, 145 S.W. (2d) 152; Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v...