Silvester v. City of St. Louis
| Decision Date | 12 November 1901 |
| Citation | 65 S.W. 278,164 Mo. 601 |
| Parties | SILVESTER et al. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
St. Louis City Charter, art. 6, § 9, allows the dismissal of condemnation proceedings at any time before the final confirmation of the commissioners' report; and section 10 provides that after approval of the commissioners' report and final action by the court the assembly shall make an appropriation of all damages assessed, and the city treasury shall pay the same to the parties or into court, as provided by ordinance. Held, that where, after confirmation of commissioners' award, an ordinance appropriating the amount necessary for the damages assessed is vetoed by the mayor, and no further steps are taken in the condemnation, no action can be maintained against the city on the award.
Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; L. B. Valliant, Judge.
Action by Sarah A. Silvester and another against the city of St. Louis. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Jas. M. Sutherland, for appellants. B. Schnurmacher and Chas. C. Allen, for respondent.
This is an action by plaintiffs to recover of defendant the sum of $10,300, being the amount and interest from July 28, 1897, of the award of commissioners for damages to plaintiffs' property in St. Louis in a proceeding by said city to establish and open Compton avenue a public highway from Magnolia avenue southwardly to its intersection with Wilmington road. The trial resulted in a judgment for defendant, from which plaintiffs appeal.
The facts, briefly stated, are about as follows: On December 26, 1893, the defendant city undertook to establish Compton avenue a public highway from Magnolia avenue southwardly to its intersection with Wilmington road, and to that end adopted Ordinance No. 17,346. Thereafter, on the 1st day of August, 1894, the city instituted suit in the circuit court, the necessary opening proceedings for the appropriation of private property for that purpose. The plaintiff Sarah A. Silvester owned a parcel of land fronting 199 feet 6¼ inches on Compton avenue, and under the scheme for opening and extending Compton avenue a strip of her land would be taken off the eastern edge thereof to a uniform width of 12 feet 6¼ inches, thus making the required strip 12 feet 6¼ inches by 199 feet 6¼ inches. Commissioners were regularly appointed by the circuit court, and in their report, duly filed, they awarded the plaintiff Sarah A. Silvester $800 as the value of the land proposed to be taken and $10,000 as the value of certain improvements thereon. In accordance with section 9 of article 6 of the city charter (2 Rev. St. Mo. 1899, p. 2461), the report of the commissioners, after having been filed in the circuit court, was reported to the municipal assembly, which approved it. Certain exceptions which had been filed were heard, with the result that the court reduced the damages awarded plaintiff for her improvements to $9,500, but leaving the award for the land at $800, thus making the total damages allowed her $10,300. All of the exceptions having been disposed of, the court entered a final judgment confirming the report, and a certified copy thereof was duly delivered, in accordance with section 10 of article 6 of the charter, to the comptroller, who furnished a copy thereof to the assembly. The assembly thereupon passed through both of its branches a bill for the appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the damages assessed in the opening proceedings, but this bill was vetoed by the mayor, and returned to the branch of the assembly wherein it originated. Thereafter the mayor's veto was sustained in both houses of the assembly, and no appropriation for the payment of the damages was ever made, nor was any other step had or taken in reference to the opening of Compton avenue. Thereupon the plaintiffs brought this suit against the city of St. Louis for the amount of the award of the commissioners, together with interest thereon from July 28, 1897, the day when the circuit court approved the report. The petition recites that the municipal assembly made the necessary appropriation for the payment of the damages ascertained by the commissioners, but upon the trial it was conceded that this allegation was not founded in fact, and the facts as they are above stated were agreed upon by stipulation, and upon them the case was submitted to the lower court. It was also admitted upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist.
... ... 101, 26 S.W. 698, 24 L. R. A ... 516, 43 Am. St. Rep. 547; Schopp v. St. Louis, 117 ... Mo. 131, 22 S.W. 898, 20 L. R. A. 783; Cranley v. Boyd ... County, 99 S.W.2d 737, 266 ... [ Jasper Land & Improvement Co. v. Kansas City, 293 ... Mo. 674, 239 S.W. 864; Silvester v. St. Louis, 164 ... Mo. 601, 65 S.W. 278.] In the ... ...
-
The State ex rel. Scott v. Trimble
...The persons who are the actual owners of the property at the time of its actual appropriation are alone entitled to the award. Silvester v. St. Louis, 164 Mo. 601; Land Imp. Co. v. Kansas City, 293 Mo. 674; Hamilton v. Big Medicine Drain. Dist., 261 S.W. 940. (4) The Court of Appeals held t......
-
Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist.
...of the price and appropriation thereunder. [Jasper Land & Improvement Co. v. Kansas City, 293 Mo. 674, 239 S.W. 864; Silvester v. St. Louis, 164 Mo. 601, 65 S.W. 278.] In the present case it may be considered that the fee simple title passed upon payment of the money awarded. There is no qu......
-
State v. Trimble
...of the price and appropriation thereunder. Land & Improvement Co. v. Kansas City, 293 Mo. 674, 239 S. W. 864; Silvester v. City of St. Louis, 164 Mo. 601, 65 S. W. 278. In the present case it may be considered that the fee-simple title passed upon payment of the money awarded. There is no q......