Meier v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 09 March 1904
• Citation: 180 Mo. 391,79 S.W. 955
• Parties: MEIER v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

79 S.W. 955

180 Mo. 391

MEIER v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 9, 1904.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — CHARTERS — CONSTRUCTION — EFFECT — STREET IMPROVEMENTS — SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — DUE PROCESS OF LAW — NOTICE — TAXING DISTRICTS — UNPLATTED PROPERTY — BOUNDARIES.

1. The Legislature has power to create special taxing districts, and to charge the cost of a local improvement, in whole or in part, on the property in such district by special assessments, either according to valuation, superficial area, or frontage.

2. Const. art. 10, requiring taxes to be uniform, and to be levied in proportion to value, etc., is not applicable to special assessments for local improvements.

3. Due process of law in the levy of special assessments does not require notice to property owners respecting such matters as the Legislature self-determines or delegates to the municipal authorities.

4. Since St. Louis Amended City Charter, art. 6, § 14, providing for the levy of special assessments for street improvements, requires the publication of notice to property owners, and an opportunity to be heard before the tribunal on which is devolved the duty of ascertaining the facts and acting thereon in making a special assessment, an assessment levied thereunder is not objectionable as depriving the person assessed of his property without due process of law.

5. Where a special assessment district has been fixed by valid legislation, and the apportionment of the cost of an improvement on the property in the district has been made, the owner of property assessed therein cannot contend that his property was not in fact benefited to the amount assessed in accordance with such apportionment.

6. The charter of the city of St. Louis, adopted in obedience to an express grant by the Constitution of the state with respect to municipal matters, including special assessments for local improvements, has all the force and effect of an act of the Legislature.

7. St. Louis City Charter, art. 6, § 14, provides that the total cost of grading streets, etc., shall be ascertained, and one-fourth thereof shall be assessed on all property "fronting on or adjoining the improvement," in the proportion that the frontage of each "lot so fronting or adjoining" bears to the total aggregate frontage of all lots or parcels of ground "fronting on or adjoining" the improvement, and the remaining three-fourths shall be levied and assessed on all the property in the district to be defined and bounded by drawing a line midway between the street to be improved and the next parallel or converging street on each

side of the improved street, provided that, if the property is divided into lots, the district line shall be so drawn as to include the entire depth of all lots "fronting" the street to be improved, and that the assessment shall be in the proportion that the area of each lot or parcel of ground, or a part of each parcel of ground, lying within the district, bears to the total area of the district, exclusive of streets and alleys. Held that, where a parcel of land sought to be assessed for a street improvement had never been divided into lots or platted, and such property fronted on a street other than the one improved, the taxing district for the assessment of the three-fourths of the cost of the improvement should be ascertained by dividing it midway between the street improved and the next parallel street.

In Banc. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Jesse A. McDonald, Judge.

Action by E. F. W. Meier against the city of St. Louis and others to cancel certain tax bills. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The following is the plat referred to in the opinion:

Chas. W. Bates and Benj. H. Charles, for appellants. Randolph Laughlin, for respondent.

GANTT, J.

This is a suit in equity to cancel two special tax bills made out, certified, and registered by the president of the board of public improvements and the comptroller of the city of St. Louis, and, at the time of the bringing of this suit, ready for delivery to the contractor in payment for the improvement of Texas avenue, in the city of St. Louis, between Miami and Potomac streets. The plaintiff is the owner of the property against which an assessment was made for a proportionate part of the cost. The defendant Henry Ruckert is the contractor who did the work. The cause was heard upon an agreed statement of facts. The circuit court decreed the cancellation of one of the tax bills, and denied it as to the other. The property of plaintiff affected by the suit is accurately described in a plat made by plaintiff and wife, and filed July 28,

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

1902, after the taking effect of the ordinance for the improvement of Texas avenue, which plat will accompany this opinion. In his petition, plaintiff describes the several pieces, 1, 2, and 3, as indicated on the plat, as three distinct tracts of ground, whereas the city authorities treated it as two, and made out one tax bill to cover 1 and 2 as one tract, and No. 3 as a second tract. It is conceded that the ordinance undertook to define the taxing or area district, and, in so doing, used the word "east," instead of "west," in section 4 of the ordinance, thereby excluding a tier of lots from the taxing district which the charter required to be included. When the president of the board, and the officials whose duty it is to cause the apportionment to be made, came to make out the tax bills, they followed the charter, instead of the ordinance, and included these lots in the taxing district. The burden of the plaintiff's case, however, is that in defining the taxing district the city authorities did not draw the line on the west midway between Texas avenue, the street to be improved, and Ohio avenue, the next parallel street on the west, but included the whole of plaintiff's property in block 1566, a tract running from Texas avenue to Ohio avenue, and fronting on Miami street, and this resulted in a levy of the tax on the west half of plaintiff's said tract; and it is of this he complains, alleging that he is willing and ready to pay his proportionate share of the cost of said improvement, based upon the proportion that the east half of his said tract and all of his tract No. 3, as designated on said plat, bears to the whole area of the taxed district, and denies that the said west half and the lots in tract No. 2 are liable for said improvement on the area assessment provided by the amended charter in section 14 of article 6 thereof. On the other hand, the defendant city insists that all of the plaintiff's said tract constitutes but one lot, and that, in the meaning of the charter, it fronts on said Texas avenue, and the district should include the whole of it. Defendant Ruckert, the contractor, admits the facts alleged in the petition, and asks that, if the bills be found void, the prayer of the petition be granted, and the city authorities be required to issue him other tax bills in accordance with the taxing district and apportionment to be fixed by the court. With the exception of the alleged mistake in using the word "east," instead of "west," the proceedings were all...