Missouri Zinc Fields Co. v. Webb

• Decision Date: 08 July 1922
• Docket Number: No. 2968.,2968.
• Parties: MISSOURI ZINC FIELDS CO. v. WEBB CITY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

242 S.W. 1008 MISSOURI ZINC FIELDS CO.
v.
WEBB CITY. No. 2968. Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri. July 8, 1922. Rehearing Denied August 9, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; J. D. Perkins, Judge.

Suit by the Missouri Zinc Fields Company against Webb City. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded. with directions.

A. G. Young, of Webb City, for appellant. Ray E. Watson, of Webb City, for respondent.

FARRINGTON, J.

This suit was begun by the plaintiff filing a bill in equity which sought to enjoin respondent from assessing and levying municipal taxes on three 40-acre tracts of land belonging to plaintiff which had by ordinance been included within the corporate limits of Webb City. It appears from the record that, beginning with 1888, the city had from time to time passed ordinances extending the city limits of Webb City so as to include some portions of the land involved in this suit within the corporate limits of Webb City, and plaintiff had from time to time resisted payment of taxes. A number of suits in the circuit court had involved the reasonableness of the extension of the city to this territory, and in each instance the ordinance taking such land into the incorporated city was declared unreasonable. After such action of the trial court the city would then pass a new ordinance taking in the same land and additional land. There is no showing that the procedures concerning elections, passing of ordinances, etc., were not at all times in accordance with the law relative to such matters, and it is apparent that the decisions of the trial court from time to time were based solely on the ground that plaintiff's land was unfit for city purposes, and ordinances taking it within the city limits were held to be unreasonable.

Respondent makes claim that plaintiff should be estopped from maintaining this suit because of the fact that other territory was taken into the city limits at the same time the ordinances were passed taking in plaintiff's land, and that such other portions of the city as were taken in had become populated and treated as city property and in fact a part of Webb City.

There is nothing in the record, so far as we can find, which indicates that plaintiff ever did anything except resist payment of taxes and refuse to recognize that it was legally a part of the incorporated city.

The evidence in the record before us clearly shows that the three 40-acre tracts of land involved...