Schneider Granite Co. v. Gast Realty & Investment Co.
| Decision Date | 17 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | Four cases,numbered 16439,16414,19464 and 19465 |
| Citation | 191 S.W. 689,269 Mo. 561 |
| Parties | SCHNEIDER GRANITE COMPANY v. GAST REALTY & INVESTMENT COMPANY, Appellant. SCHNEIDER GRANITE COMPANY, Appellant, v. GAST REALTY & INVESTMENT COMPANY |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. Hugo Grimm Judge.
Reversed and remanded (with directions).
Holland Rutledge & Lashly and David Goldsmith for appellant.
Hickman P. Rodgers and Rodgers & Koerner for respondents.
OPINION
In Banc.
Cases numbered 16439 and 16414 have heretofore been heard and determined in Division Number Two, and the judgments of the trial court rendered therein were affirmed. On error to the Supreme Court of the United States there was a reversal of the judgment rendered on former hearings on the ground that the ordinance of the city of St. Louis there involved was invalid in providing for special assessments for street improvements based on the area of the property assessed without requiring an equal depth of the assessment district, thereby subjecting lot-owners having a greater depth of property than those adjoining them to unequal taxation. Upon the coming down of the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States the cases above numbered were transferred to the Court in Banc, as well as cases numbered 19464 and 19465, in which the underlying ordinance and the taxing district were the same as in cases numbered 16439 and 16414. It is conceded by counsel for appellant that the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States is determinative of cases 19464 and 19465, as well as cases 16439 and 16414, and that "the facts in all of the cases are the same, the depth of defendant's property the same and the alleged disproportionate taxation the same." Under these circumstances it follows that a like ruling is applicable here in all of these cases.
A reasonable construction of the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States is that it is limited to a holding of the invalidity of the ordinance in question only so far as the latter concerns an assessment of property for street improvement based on the area rule.
In discussing the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Ruecking Const. Co. v. Withnell, (ante, p. 546), we reach a like conclusion.
The tax bills in the cases under review clearly define the amounts due...
To continue reading
Request your trial