Murnane v. City of St. Louis
| Decision Date | 25 June 1894 |
| Parties | MURNANE v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. The Missouri act of March 14, 1893, by the use of terms requiring the whole cost of improvement of streets, etc., to be charged against adjoining property, and said cost to be "levied, collected and paid in the manner and at the time now provided by law or charter of said cities," etc., indicates plainly the intent that said act shall apply only to charters now existing; and hence it is in conflict with the constitutional command against special legislation. Sherwood and Burgess, JJ., dissenting.
2. The assessment and collection of the cost for street improvements properly belongs to municipal affairs, and appertains to the local government of the corporation.
3. The act of March 14, 1893, purports to create a class of cities having a population of 300,000 or over, whereas there are already four classes of general charters for cities, etc., of various sizes, the first class of which consists of those having a population of 100,000 or more. Held, that the formation of a new class of cities, within the first class, for strictly municipal objects, is in violation of the section of the constitution which limits the number of such classes to four, and declares that "the power of each class shall be defined by general laws, so that all such municipal corporations of the first class shall possess the same powers and be subject to the same restrictions." Const. art. 9, § 7. Per Barclay, Brace, and Gantt, JJ.
(Syllabus by the Judge.)
In banc. Appeal from St. Louis circuit court.
This is a suit by Julia Murnane, as owner of a lot of land on Evans avenue, in St. Louis, to enjoin the performance of a contract entered into by the city of St. Louis and a construction company for the improvement of that avenue, to be paid wholly by special tax bills against the property of plaintiff and other owners of adjacent land. It appears from the petition that the part of the cost of the improvement which will be chargeable against the plaintiff's property, under the contract mentioned, will amount to more than 25 per cent. of the assessed value of her property. It is not necessary to state the contents of the petition at large, for the real issue is one at law, and lies in a small compass. No point is raised as to the regularity of the steps taken by the municipal authorities in letting the contract, further than that in so doing they disregarded that part of the charter of St. Louis which declared that whenever the estimated special taxes to be assessed against any property for the cost of improving a street shall, in the aggregate, amount to more than 25 per cent. a the assessed value of said property, then the assembly shall provide out of the general revenue for the payment of the amount in excess of the said 25 per cent. St. Louis Charter, art. 6, § 18 (Rev. St. 1889, p. 2123, § 18). This appropriation by the municipal assembly was not made in the case at bar, for the reason that the charter provision just cited is said to have been repealed, and the city authorized to charge the entire cost of the improvement by special tax bills upon the adjoining property, by virtue of an act of the general assembly of Missouri approved March 14, 1893, entitled "An act relating to the construction of streets, alleys and public highways in cities of this state, having 300,000 inhabitants or over." Laws Mo. 1893, p. 59. The validity of this act, to repeal the section of the charter above mentioned, is the point of controversy. In the trial court that issue was raised by demurrer to the petition, which the court sustained, and judgment went for defendants, accordingly, followed by the present appeal. Reversed.
Leverett Bell, for appellant. W. C. Marshall and H. & A. C. Clover, for respondents.
BARCLAY, J. (after stating the facts as above).
No formal questions in relation to the mode of procedure have been started. Both parties meet the substance of the issue on its merits.
1. The changes sought to be made in the general charter for cities of the first class (section 1140, Rev. St. 1889, identical with that of St. Louis on this point), by the act of 1893, can best be shown by placing their terms in juxtaposition:
Cities of the First Class. Act March 14, 1893
Sec. 1140. The cost of construction Section 1. In all cities of
of all the foregoing this state which now have
improvements within or may hereafter have a
the city shall be apportioned population of three hundred
as follows: The grading of thousand inhabitants or
new streets, alleys, and the over, the whole cost of paving
making of cross-walks and grading, construction
the repairs of all streets and or reconstruction, curbing
highways and cleaning of glittering, cross-walks, sidewalks
same, and of all alleys and and the materials for
cross-walks, shall be paid the roadways of all streets
out of the general revenue alleys and public highways
of the city; and the paving, hereafter constructed, reconstructed
curbing, guttering, sidewalks, or improved in
and the materials for said cities, and the repairs
the roadways, the repairs of all alleys and sidewalks,
of all alleys and sidewalks, shall be charged upon the
shall be charged upon the property adjoining such improvement
adjoining property as a as a special tax,
special tax, and collected and levied, collected and
and paid as hereinafter provided. paid in the manner and at
whenever the estimated the time now provided by
special taxes to be law or charter of said cities
assessed against any property for the levy, collection and
shall, in the aggregate, payment of special tax-bills
amount to more than twenty-five for the street improvements
per cent of the assessed in said cities. The cost of
value of said property, repairs of all streets and
calculating a depth to highways, and cleaning of
such property of one hundred the same and of all alleys
and fifty feet, then the and cross-walks, shall be
assembly shall provide out paid out of the general revenue
of the general revenue for of said cities. The cost
the payment of the amount of repairs and cleaning of
in excess of the said twenty-five all streets and highways,
per cent. The board of except boulevards established
public improvements shall or to be established
notify the assembly whenever by law, and the cleaning of
an ordinance is pending all alleys and cross-walks,
which requires an appropriation shall be paid out of the general
out of the general revenue of said cities:
revenue to pay apart of the provided, however, that nothing
costs of the improvements in this act shall be so
therein contemplated. construed as to relieve any
street rail way company
from any duties, liabilities
or obligations now existing
or which may hereafter be
imposed.
Sec. 2. All acts and parts
of acts, and any provision
of the laws or ordinances of
said cities, conflicting or inconsistent
with the provisions
of this act, are hereby
repealed.
It will be seen that the act of 1893 not only removes all limitation as to the amount of special taxes for those street improvements which are chargeable upon adjacent property, but it would fain add to those charges several items now payable out of the general revenue of "such cities," namely, the cost of grading streets and of constructing and reconstructing cross walks. It seeks, moreover, to ingraft on the old law an exception against property owners on "boulevards established or to be established by law," by exempting the city from liability for cleaning such streets at the general expense. The statute in question does not bear upon any of the subjects which concern the relations of a city to the state, or are authorized topics, under the constitution, for general legislation applicable to St. Louis, such, for instance, as were contained in the laws discussed in State v. Tolle (1880) 71 Mo. 645; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle (1884) 85 Mo. 64; State v. Miller (1890) 100 Mo. 439, 13 S. W. 677, and in later cases in the smite line. The subject touched by the act before us is a matter strictly of municipal regulation, and the terms of the enactment clearly disclose that the legislature so regarded it. In State v. Field (1889) 99 Mo. 356, 12 S. W. 802, it was said that the "matter of assessing damages and benefits for grading and regrading streets naturally falls within the domain of municipal government." And the matter of assessing special taxes for street construction, and of imposing certain other charges (in regard to street cleaning) upon the general revenue a such cities, belongs, undoubtedly, to the same field of mere local government.
We therefore first consider whether the act of 1893 accords with the provisions of the constitution (article 9) touching the organization and classification of cities and...
To continue reading
Request your trial