Kansas City v. Cain

• Decision Date: 10 November 1958
• Docket Number: No. 46814,No. 1,46814,1
• Citation: 317 S.W.2d 331
• Parties: KANSAS CITY, Missouri, Condemnor, Respondent, v. Retta A. CAIN, Charies A. Hoopes, Nellie May Hoopes, Orville D. Baker, Maurine Baker, Edward A. Benoit, Esther Benoit, Fred C. Hartman, Clifford L. Swenson, and Alma I. Swenson, Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 331

317 S.W.2d 331

KANSAS CITY, Missouri, Condemnor, Respondent, v. Retta A. CAIN, Charies A. Hoopes, Nellie May Hoopes, Orville D. Baker, Maurine Baker, Edward A. Benoit, Esther Benoit, Fred C. Hartman, Clifford L Swenson, and Alma I. Swenson Appellants.

No. 46814.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Nov. 10, 1958.

Robert L. Jackson, Kansas City, Richard E. McFadin, McFadin & Spooner, North Kansas City, for appellants.

Benj. M. Powers, City Counselor, Herbert C. Hoffman, Associate City Counselor, Elmo M. Hargrave, Asst. City Counselor, Kansas City, Robert F. Sevier, Liberty, of counsel, for respondent.

Robert E. Coleberd, Liberty, William Harrison Norton, North Kansas City, amici curiae.

COIL, Commissioner.

Kansas City, acting pursuant to the provisions of Article VI of its 1956 charter, filed a certified copy of ordinance No. 19358 with a plat of the land to be condemned for public park purposes. Thereafter, on October 14, 1957, a jury returned a verdict assessing damages in the total sum of $1,378,050.24, made up of 250 separate awards. $165,492.72 of that total was assessed against Kansas City and the balance as benefit assessments against owners of private real estate in the benefit district. On November 27, 1957, all appellants filed a joint motion to 'discharge jury and to vacate verdict' averring that they were owners of real estate within the benefit district, and on December 4, 1957, appellants Retta A. Cain and Charles and Nellie May Hoopes filed a joint motion to 'discharge jury and to vacate verdict,' identical with the prior motion except that those appellants alleged that they were the owners of real estate that had been condemned in the proceedings. On February 6, 1958, the trial court denied the two motions and entered a judgment and decree confirming the jury's verdict and vesting title. On February 11, 1958, present appellants filed an 'affidavit for appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri,' and on February 17, 1958, filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri.

Appellants contend that we have jurisdiction for three reasons, viz., that constitutional questions are involved, that the amount in dispute is in excess of $7,500, and 'because of the jurisdictional question presented as to the right of the City, under its Charter, to maintain an action in Clay County, Missouri.' Respondent Kansas City asserts that we have jurisdiction because there was a judgment entered below on a verdict in excess of $7,500. Amicus curiae suggests that we have jurisdiction because Kansas City is a political subdivision of the State of Missouri.

The record hows that the award of damages to appellant, Mrs. Cain, was $550, and the award to appellants Charles and Nellie May Hoopes, $500, and the record shows that Mrs. Cain and Mr. Hoopes each testified that he considered his respective award fair and proper. And, on this appeal, those appellants do not contend that the amount of the award to either of them was inadequate. The total amount assessed against all appellants as benefits was $786.90 and none of the appellants claims that the amount assessed against him as a benefit was excessive. Under those facts, it is apparent that there is no amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeding $7,500. Art. 5, Sec. 3, Mo.Const.1945, V.A.M.S.; Kansas City v. National Engineering & Mfg. Co., Mo., 265 S.W.2d 384.

It has been specifically ruled many times that a city is not a political subdivision of the state within the meaning of Art. 5, Sec. 3, supra. Kansas City v. National Engineering Co., supra, 265 S.W.2d 386[3, 4]; Ingle v. City of Fulton, Mo., 260 S.W.2d 666, 668.

There is no provision in Art. 5, Sec. 3, supra, which provides that this court shall have...