McConnell v. City of Kansas City, 44683

• Decision Date: 12 September 1955
• Docket Number: No. 44683,No. 1,44683,1
• Citation: 282 S.W.2d 518
• Parties: James W. McCONNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, Missouri, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Citizens League for Better Government and James F. Neese, Intervenors-Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 518

282 S.W.2d 518

James W. McCONNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, Missouri, et al., Defendants-Respondents Citizens League for Better Government and James F. Neese Intervenors-Appellants.

No. 44683.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Sept. 12, 1955.

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Court En Banc Denied

Oct. 10, 1955.

George Edward Leonard, Kansas City, Quintin Johnstone, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellant James W. McConnell.

Jack G. Beamer, Don G. Stubbs, Stubbs, McKenzie, Williams & Merrick, Kansas City, Garrett, Terry, Jones, Blumer & Welton, Kansas City, for appellants Citizens League for Better Government and James F. Neese.

David M. Proctor, City Counselor, John J. Cosgrove, Associate City Counselor, Kansas City, for respondents.

Randolph & Randolph, Ronald S. Reed, St. Joseph, for amicus curiae Suburban Progressive Club, Inc.

COIL, Commissioner.

The question presented is the constitutionality of RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., Section 71.015 (enacted by the 67th General Assembly and known as the Sawyer Act) as it applies to the City of Kansas City.

That law is: 'Whenever the governing body of any city has adopted a resolution to annex any unincorporated area of land, such city shall, before proceeding as otherwise authorized by law or charter for annexation of unincorporated areas, file an action in the circuit court of the county in which such unincorporated area is situated, under the provisions of chapter 527 RSMo, praying for a declaratory judgment authorizing such annexation. The petition in such action shall state facts showing: 1. The area to be annexed; 2. That such annexation is reasonable and necessary to the proper development of said city; and 3. The ability of said city to furnish normal municipal services of said city to said unincorporated area within a reasonable time after said annexation is to become effective. Such action shall be a class action against the inhabitants of such unincorporated area under the provisions of section 507.070, RSMo.'

On August 7, 1954, Kansas City passed an ordinance (Committee Substitute for Ordinance 15951) which provided for the submission to the electors at the next general election on November 2, 1954, a proposition to amend the city's charter by extending the corporate limits to include territory to the south of the present corporate limits.

Appellant McConnell brought an action against Kansas City, the members of its City Council, the Board of Election Commissioners, the Mayor, City Manager and the City Clerk, in which he averred that he owned real property within the area proposed for annexation by the above-noted ordinance, and that Kansas City had failed to comply with the Sawyer Act in that it had not proceeded as therein required for a declaratory judgment. He prayed for a declaratory judgment declaring the validity of the Sawyer Act and for an injunction enjoining the submission of the annexation proposition to the voters until Kansas City had first complied with the Act.

The Citizens League for Better Government, a corporation, and James F. Neese, a citizen and property owner in Jackson County, with leave, filed an intervening petition containing generally the same averments as in McConnell's petition.

Kansas City's motions to dismiss both petitions were sustained on the ground that the Sawyer Act was unconstitutional because it limited the power of Kansas City to amend its charter as provided in Mo.Const.1945, Art. VI, Sec. 20, V.A.M.S., and because the Act was too indefinite and uncertain to permit a construction thereof which would give effect to any sufficiently clearly expressed intention of the legislature.

McConnell and intervenors have appealed from the final judgment of dismissal. Suburban Progressive Club, Inc. of Buchanan County, with leave, has filed here an amicus curiae brief.

We note, as pointed out by respondent, that although the City is required to bring an action for a declaratory judgment, there is no specific requirement in the Act that the city must obtain such a judgment and, if so, whether before or after the time of acceptance or rejection by the voters. The Act provides that 'whenever the governing body of any city has adopted a resolution to annex any unincorporated area of land, such city shall, before proceeding as otherwise authorized by law or charter * * * file an action in the circuit court * * *.' (Italics ours.) Consequently, it would appear that, construing 'resolution' to include 'ordinance,' the legislative intent is plain enough that the city is to seek and, by clear implication, obtain the declaratory judgment before the proposition contained in the ordinance is submitted to the voters. So that we may read the first part of the Act as though it provided: 'Whenever the governing body of any city has passed an ordinance to annex or to submit to the voters a proposal to annex any unincorporated area of land, such city shall, before proceeding further, first obtain a declaratory judgment in an action filed by it,' etc.

The Act then designates the declaratory judgment to be prayed for (and we have said to be obtained) as 'a declaratory judgment authorizing such annexation.' Now, it is difficult to give any meaning to the last quoted words other than, either, that the language means exactly what it says, viz., that the declaratory judgment to be obtained is one 'authorizing such annexation', or, perhaps, that the language used may be said to mean that the declaratory judgment contemplated was one 'authorizing the city to proceed with annexation proceedings as otherwise provided by law.'

Kansas City is a constitutional charter City. Art. VI, Sec. 20, of the Constitution (all references to the constitution are to Mo.Const.1945, V.A.M.S., unless otherwise indicated), applicable to Kansas City, is a self-enforcing provision conferring the power, and providing the procedure for, constitutional charter cities to amend their charters; and an extension of a city's corporate limits is a charter amendment within the purview of Art. VI, Sec. 20. State ex Inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S.W.2d 762, 769-771. Art. VI, Sec. 20, provides: 'Amendments of any city charter adopted under the foregoing provisions may be submitted to the electors by a commission as provided for a complete charter. Amendments may also be proposed by the legislative body of the city or by petition of not less than ten per cent of the registered qualified electors of the city, filed with the body or official having charge of the city elections, setting forth the proposed amendment. The legislative body shall at once provide, by ordinance, that any amendment so proposed shall be submitted to the electors at the next election...