St. Louis Bridge Co. v. City of East St. Louis

• Decision Date: 20 June 1887
• Citation: 12 N.E. 723,121 Ill. 238
• Parties: ST. LOUIS BRIDGE CO. v. CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS and others.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

121 Ill. 238

12 N.E. 723

ST. LOUIS BRIDGE CO.

v.CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS and others.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 20, 1887.

Error to St. Clair circuit court.

G. & G. A. Koerner, for plaintiffs in error.

Charles W. Thomas, for defendant in error.

SHOPE, J.

This was a bill for injunction to restrain the collection of the city taxes levied and assessed by the corporate authorities of the city of East St. Louis for the year 1885, upon all that part of the bridge across the Mississippi, and connecting the cities of East St. Louis and St. Louis, between the west line of Front street, in the city of East St. Louis, and the middle of the Mississippi river. Plaintiff in error, a corporation existing under the laws of the state of Missouri, became the owner of the bridge and its approaches in 1879, and as such owner exhibited this bill in the circuit court of St. Clair county, where, on demurrer being interposed, the bill was dismissed, and the record is brought to this court by writ of error. It appears from the bill that the ‘bridge and approaches are within the city limits of the city of East St. Louis, which extend westward to the boundary line of the state, to-wit, the middle of the Mississippi river; but that a great part, and the most valuable part, of said bridge structure, is west of the east bank of the Mississippi river, and west of the western line of Front street, in the city of East St. Louis, and is in and over the Mississippi river, and upon territory not in any way improved, or even improvable, on the part of the said city of East St. Louis;’ that in 1874 the assessor of St. Clair county made a survey of the bridge and approaches, and duly recorded the same, by which it appeared that the bridge structure, for tax purposes, extended to a point taken to be the middle of the Mississippi river, and that since that time the bridge structure had been regularly assessed as real estate by the St. Clair county assessor, and since that county adopted township organization, by the township assessor, for state, county, township, school, road, and bridge and city purposes, and such taxes paid by plaintiff in error; that the assessed valuation of the bridge and approaches within the state of Illinois for 1885, as equalized, was $946,000, and the taxes assessed thereon for that year aggregated $27,500, of which $15,136 was the city taxes of the city of East St. Louis. From an exhibit to the bill it appears that the timber and iron trestle approaches to the bridge extend 3,348 feet, passing in its course across and over a number of streets and avenues within the city of East St. Louis; that this approach joins the main bridge at a point about the western line of Front street, in that city, a street parallel with the water-line of the Mississippi river; that the bridge proper begins at a point 252 1/2 feet east of the ordinary water-line of the river; and that from such water-line to the center of the second span of the bridge the distance is 762 1/2 feet,-that is to say, the length of the approach is 3,348, and the bridge proper, and within the limits of the city, is 1,015 feet.

It is averred in the bill that the Mississippi river is a navigable stream, that that part of the bridge eastward of the western boundary of the state and city, in and over the Mississippi river, and on land covered by that river, which, for that reason, could never be used by the city for any purposes of improvement, is three times more valuable than that part of the bridge structure within the improved and improvable part of the city,-that is to say, the 3,600 1/2 feet of bridge and approaches to the eastward of the water-line of the river is only one-fourth as valuable as the 762 1/2 feet of the bridge proper, from the water-line of the river to the state boundary, (the center of the second span of the bridge.) The further averment is that in the preceding 10 years plaintiff in error has paid city taxes upon such bridge structure to the amount of $125,000. That it has not, during that time, derived any protection for any part of the bridge structure from the municipal corporation, nor has a dollar of the heavy taxes it has paid to the city been by the city spent for the use or protection of the bridge. That plaintiff in error has, at heavy expenses, lighted the bridge and approaches; policed it with its own police force; built and maintained its own water-works,-laying pipes, erecting water and fire plugs, not only on its own structure, but under and along the streets of the city; maintained its own apparatus for extinguishing fires, the city having no fire department; sprinkled the bridge and approaches; cleaned its roadway, and the city's streets and dykes leading to the bridge, to accommodate the team bridge traffic; employed physicians, and provided hospital accommodations for its injured employes,-the city having no public hospital, dispensary, or physician. And finally averring the insolvency of the city, and that as to all that part of the bridge beyond the western line of Front street, and which is situated in and over the Mississippi river, the city tax was illegally and unconstitutionally levied; and that such illegal tax was equal to three-fourths of the whole city tax levied upon the bridge structure, viz., three-fourths of $15,136, equaling $11,352.

...