Kansas City v. Ashley, 51618
Decision Date | 12 September 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 51618,No. 1,51618,1 |
Citation | 406 S.W.2d 584 |
Parties | In re Proceedings Taking and Condemning Private Property in Kansas City. KANSAS CITY, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. James G. ASHLEY, Sr., et al., Respondents |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Herbert C. Hoffman, City Counselor, Ned B. Bahr, Assoc. City Counselor, Benj. M. Powers, Sp. Counsel, for appellant.
Charles W. Hess, Kansas City, for respondnet, Ashley, Linde, Thomson, VanDyke, Fairchild & Langworthy, Kansas City, of counsel.
Abraham E. Margolin, Norman M. Arnell, Margolin & Kirwan, Kansas City, for respondents American Academy of General Practice, Inc., Twin Oaks, Inc., Althea Steil and Louis Mang.
Maurice O'Sullivan, Kemp, Koontz, Clagett & Norquist, Kansas City, for respondent Rock Springs Realty, Inc.
Seth Lacy, Lacy & Lacy, Kansas City, for respondent Meadow Park Land Co.
Loeb Granoff, Rich, Rich & Granoff, Kansas City, for respondents Safehi Realty Co. and Emma Seymour.
Terence M. O'Brien, Kansas City, for respondent Cecilia W. Bradley.
Dick H. Woods, Stinson, Mag, Thomson, McEvers & Fizzell, Kansas City, for respondents Second Presbyterian Church of Kansas City, Gladys Schnorf, Howard M. and Frances C. Gaston and Katz Drug Co.
Charles L. Carr, Kansas City, for respondents Theodore and Doris Aschmann.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Appellant's condemnation proceeding was dismissed upon respondents' motions to dismiss which raised a constitutional question of lack of power and authority in appellant to condemn a railroad right of way longitudinally.
Appellant is a constitutional charter city under Article VI, Section 19, Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S., and it brought this condemnation proceeding under Articles I and VI of its charter. Appellant's Ordinance 24408, together with the required plat prepared by appellant's city engineer, was filed as the pleading in this condemnation suit November 25, 1959. The ordinance provided in pertinent parts:
Several motions seeking dismissal of the proceeding alleging the ordinance to be invalid and unconstitutional were filed, after which appellant obtained a continuance to amend its ordinance 'as an amended pleading to clarify the interests intended to be taken and to indicate there was a taking of all of the railroad owner's right-of-way interest, and (deleting) the reservation.' The amended ordinance, Ordinance 26364, was filed August 28, 1961, and it provided in pertinent parts:
'Section A. That Ordinance No. 24408, passed October 16, 1959, is hereby amended by striking out and repealing therefrom all of sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 thereof in their entirety, and enacting in lieu thereof new sections 1, 2, and 3, and incorporating the same description by metes and bounds of the tracts condemned, and re-enacting as new section 3 the provisions of section 5 of Ordinace 24408, all relating to the same subject and plan of improvement, and which shall read as follows:
'It is declared that the aforesaid changes do not constitute an abandonment of the proceedings in Cause No. 621,035, instituted pursuant to said Ordinance No. 24408, or affect the continuity of said proceedings except as to clarify the private property, rights and interests taken for public use.'
The Kansas City Public Service Company changed its name to Kansas City Transit, Inc., and the interest it owned in connection with this proceeding was transferred to its subsidiary, Kansas City and Westport Belt Railway Corporation, and it transferred the interest to respondents James G. Ashley, Sr., and James G. Ashley, Jr. The Ashleys contracted with the Belt Railway to continue railroad switching service in the same manner as they had rendered such public service under previous contract with the Kansas City Public Service Company and they were operating the railroad under tariffs filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Missouri Public Service Commission at the time of the hearing when the proceeding was dismissed.
The motions to dismiss which resulted in the order of dismissal suggest three categories of movants-respondents: (1) The Ashleys as owners of the railroad right of way sought to be condemned; (2) American Academy of General Practice, Inc., Twin Oaks, Inc., Althea Steil and Louise Mang, Rock Springs Realty, Inc., Meadow Park Land Company, Emma Seymour, Safehi Realty Company, Cecilia W. Bradley, Second Presbyterian Church of Kansas City, Gladys Schnorf, Howard M. and Frances C. Gaston, and Katz Drug Company (Academy, et al.), owners of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kansas City v. Webb, 35677
... ... Kansas City v. Ashley, Mo.Sup., 406 S.W.2d 584; City of Kansas City v. Marsh Oil Co., 140 Mo. 458, 41 S.W. 943, 946, 947. On the freedom of Kansas City to legislate on ... ...
-
State ex rel. Missouri Cities Water Co. v. Hodge
... ... PRICE, Judge ... The City of Mexico initiated this proceeding seeking to condemn a waterworks system ... In Kansas City v. Ashley, 406 S.W.2d 584, 590 (Mo.1966), Kansas City was not allowed ... ...
-
Barfield v. Sho-Me Power Elec. Coop.
... ... Clement, Heidi Doerhoff Vollet, Cook & Vetter, Jefferson City, MO, Fred O'Neill, Thayer, MO, for PlaintiffsAppellees. David Lynn ... Kansas City v. Ashley , 406 S.W.2d 584, 592 (Mo. 1966), quoting Cape Girardeau ... ...
-
Meadowbrook Country Club v. Davis, 52826
... ... Merrill v. City of St. Louis, 83 Mo. 244; O'Day v. Conn, 131 Mo. 321, 32 S.W. 1109; Hoover ... Corp. v. Investment Service, Inc., Mo., 235 S.W.2d 355; Kansas City v. Ashley, et al., Mo., 406 S.W.2d 584; General Installation Co. v ... ...
-
Exceeding the Scope of an Easement: "Expanded Use" Within a Single Cable.
...Bell, 114 S.W. at 588; see, e.g., Barfield v. Show-Me Power Elec. Coop., 852 F.3d 795, 801 (8th Cir. 2017); Kan. City v. Ashley, 406 S.W.2d 584, 592 (Mo. 1966); Eureka Real Estate & Inv. Co. v. S. Real Estate & Fin. Co., 200 S.W.2d 328, 332 (Mo. (43.) Cape Girardeau Bell, 114 S.W. a......