Parker-Washington Co. v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 06 June 1917
• Docket Number: No. 14709.,14709.
• Citation: 196 S.W. 111,197 Mo. App. 447
• Parties: PARKER-WASHINGTON CO. v. BRADLEY.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

196 S.W. 111

197 Mo. App. 447

PARKER-WASHINGTON CO. v. BRADLEY.

No. 14709.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

Argued and Submitted May 7, 1917.

Opinion Filed June 6, 1917.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1917.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.

Action by the Parker-Washington Company against Charles E. Bradley. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Schnurmacher & Rassieur and Robert Burkham, all of St. Louis, for appellant. Barclay, Fauntleroy & Cullen, Luke E. Hart, and Richard C. Hart, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

This is an action upon two special tax bills, one issued against lot 68, the other against lot 69, in city block 4584, of the city of St. Louis, both lots owned by defendant, each tax bill dated April 1st, 1903, the first against lot No. 69 for $768.16, the second against lot No. 68, in the same block, for $768.13, the tax bills being divided for payment into 7 installments as provided by the ordinance and charter of the city. Judgment is prayed for these several amounts with interest on the installments, first at 6 per cent. per annum, then at 8 per cent. per annum, as provided by the charter.

The answer of defendant, after a general denial, in substance, denies that he is the owner of any lots of ground described or designated as lots No. 68 or 69 in city block 4584, and avers that that block has never been subdivided or platted into lots and that there are no such lots as 68 and 69 in that block. He further avers that at different times he purchased four separate and different tracts or parcels of ground in this block, acquiring the title to these several tracts from 5 different grantors and that he has never used these four several tracts or parcels of ground, as one lot of ground or as two lots of ground, but on the contrary has at all times since his acquisition of the several tracts used them and is now using them as five different tracts and that by his purchases he had become the owner of four different tracts of ground of various and different fronts and various and different shapes and areas, aggregating together on Washington Boulevard 150 feet, 6 inches more or less, but that neither by deed or by actual use has he ever thrown together these several tracts as two lots of 75 feet front each. He further avers that these tracts, so by him acquired, extend southwardly from the south line of Washington Boulevard to the north line of an alley running east and west through city block 4584, but that by actual use by defendant the several tracts referred to are not used as single lots for their entire depth, and, as used, do not extend through to the alley. It is further averred that the assessment district for the work mentioned in the several counts of the petition and upon which the tax bills are issued was not established in accordance with the provisions of the charter of the city of St. Louis and its amendments, in that the southern boundary line of the assessment district should have been a line drawn midway between the south line of Washington Boulevard and the north line of Olive Street, whereas the line drawn for this assessment district was so drawn as to take in all of the property of defendant fronting on the south line of Washington Boulevard through to the north line of the alley running east and west in the block, notwithstanding the fact that defendant's several tracts were neither lots shown by any recorded plat of additions or subdivisions, nor were they platted lots in any respect, nor had they been used as any less than 5 separate tracts of ground, and that under the charter of the city of St. Louis and its amendments, even if the special tax bills were in other respects correct and based upon the correct method of assessment, they were erroneous and void by reason of the fact that the assessment district, as laid out, embraced more depth than fell north of the midway line between Washington Boulevard and Olive Street and therefore a greater amount of area was included than was contemplated in, or justifiable, under the charter and its amendments, but since the tracts of ground of the defendant, fronting on Washington Boulevard, are unplatted tracts, only that part of them which lies between Washington Boulevard and a line drawn midway between that and Olive Street, the next parallel street south of Washington Boulevard, should, under the charter, be included in the benefit district for the work mentioned in the petition, nor were the tax bills properly made out against each of the several tracts or parcels of land belonging to this defendant. The two-year statute of limitations prescribed by the charter is pleaded in bar against all of the installments except the seventh.

A general denial of the averments of the answer was filed by way of reply. The cause was submitted to the court, a jury being waived, and having been taken under advisement, the court, making and filing a finding of facts, entered judgment in favor of plaintiff on the several tax bills for their amounts and interest. Filing a motion for new trial and saving exception to that being overruled, defendant has duly appealed.

As stated by learned counsel for appellant, the question presented in this appeal relates to the lawfulness of the method of establishing the special assessment district in this particular case. Those counsel further state that there is no doubt that the tax bills are for work done pursuant to a valid ordinance; that no defense is made on the ground that the improvements were not done in accordance with the contract; that there is no doubt that the bills were issued with all the necessary formalities, nor that they were properly served in the manner required by law. They are attacked by appellant, as his counsel state, as invalid for the sole reason that they were calculated upon a larger area of appellant's property than appellant believes to be lawful and proper under the charter of the city of St. Louis, and for the further reason that all but the seventh installment on each of them is barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

With this very frank admission and statement of the issues, learned counsel for appellant contends that the trial court erred in holding that the tracts here involved constituted two lots, numbered respectively 68 and 69, in city block 4584, of the city of St. Louis.

A mass of testimony was introduced by the respective parties tending to show the manner in which this city block had been laid out and subsequently treated by the owners of the several pieces or tracts of land in it.

That testimony is...