State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, No. 40216

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtCONKLING; HYDE; LEEDY; LEEDY
Citation360 Mo. 374,228 S.W.2d 762
Docket NumberNo. 40216
Decision Date23 February 1950
PartiesSTATE ex Inf. TAYLOR, Atty. Gen., ex rel. KANSAS CITY v. NORTH KANSAS CITY (BEAN et al., Intervenors).

Page 762

228 S.W.2d 762
360 Mo. 374
STATE ex Inf. TAYLOR, Atty. Gen., ex rel. KANSAS CITY
v.
NORTH KANSAS CITY (BEAN et al., Intervenors).
No. 40216.
Supreme Court of Missouri, en Banc.
Feb. 23, 1950.
Rehearing Denied April 10, 1950.

[360 Mo. 376]

Page 764

David M. Proctor, City Counselor, Forrest W. Hanna, John J. Cosgrove, Assistant City Counselors, Kansas City, attorneys for relator.

[360 Mo. 378] Ward A. Dorsey, James P. Aylward, George V. Aylward, Terence M. O'Brien, Kansas City, attorneys for respondent.

[360 Mo. 383] Wherritt & Sevier, Alan F. Wherritt, Robert F. Sevier, Liberty, attorneys for intervenors.

[360 Mo. 384] CONKLING, Judge.

This original proceeding in the nature of quo warranto was instituted by the Attorney General at the relation of the City of Kansas City, against the City of North Kansas City. It grows out of an attempt by each of those cities to annex a substantially identical area in Clay County, Missouri, and involves the priority and legality of the annexation proceedings. Relator (Kansas City, Missouri), a city existing under a constitutional charter adopted by it on February 24, 1925, is the second city in size in Missouri and is located in the northwestern corner of Jackson County. Respondent (North Kansas City, Missouri), a city of the fourth class, is north of, across the Missouri River from relator, and in Clay County. Intervenors (claiming to represent all persons similarly situated) are

Page 765

residents and taxpayers residing within the areas proposed to be annexed.

After the filing of the information, we issued our writ and rule to show cause. Respondent filed its answer and return raising both questions of law and issues of fact. We appointed Honorable Randall R. Kitt, of the Livingston County Bar, as Special Commissioner to hear the evidence and to report his findings of fact and conclusions of law. Intervenors were permitted to file their petition. Our Commissioner heard more than 3800 pages of testimony offered by the parties, considered the numerous exhibits and the briefs, and has filed his report here. His conclusions of law are that relator's annexation proceedings are valid and that respondent has no municipal jurisdiction over any of the area described in relator's annexation proceedings. After his report was filed all the parties filed briefs here and we heard extended oral argument.

By the prayer of the information in quo warranto relator asks that respondent be ousted and declared barred from any municipal jurisdiction over any territory included within relator's proposed annexation area, because relator, through priority of time, obtained jurisdiction to continue its proceedings (initiated August 19, 1946) to a conclusion. Relator asks us to declare it has exclusive municipal jurisdiction over the area described in its annexation proceedings. In the separate answer of respondent and in the petition of intervention both the respondent and intervenors contend relator's proceeding to annex the area proposed are illegal, unreasonable and void in law. They ask that we adjudge that respondent has exclusive [360 Mo. 385] municipal jurisdiction in the area described in respondent's annexation proceedings.

On August 19, 1946, a proposal designated Ordinance 10349 was introduced into relator's City Council. It provided for the submission to the electors of relator at the next general election (Nov. 5, 1946) of a proposal to amend relator's charter to extend its corporate limits northward into Clay County to include approximately 17 square miles described therein. The first reading thereof was made in the relator's City Council on August 19, 1946. On August 20, 1946, a proposal designated Ordinance 1193 was introduced in the respondent's Board of Aldermen. Respondent's proposed ordinance provided for the submission to respondent's electors, at a special election on September 10, 1946, of a proposal to extend respondent's boundaries north and northwest to include about eight contiguous square miles (described therein) which (except a few hundred acres) was within the area proposed to be annexed by relator in its proposal to amend its charter as set out in its proposed Ordinance 10349. Ordinance 1193 was passed by respondent's Board of Aldermen on August 20, 1946 and approved by its mayor on August 27, 1946.

On September 3, 1946, a Committee Substitute for relator's proposed Ordinance 10349 (re-describing the territory proposed to be annexed by excluding therefrom the towns of Avondale and Randolph) was presented to relator's Council and on that date was passed as an emergency measure and approved by its mayor. On September 10, 1946, at respondent's special election, Ordinance 1193 was approved by its voters. At the general election of November 5, 1946, relator's proposed charter amendment was submitted to its voters and was approved by a majority (but not by three-fifths) of those voting upon that proposition.

By relator's proposed Ordinance 10349, introduced in its City Council on August 19, 1946, it was provided that at the election of November 5, 1946, its electors should vote upon a proposal to amend its charter by repealing and re-adopting Sec. 4 of Article I of its charter, so that, as re-adopted, Sec. 4 would provide that relator's corporate limits include also the new area proposed to be annexed in Clay County. At the August 19, 1946 session of relator's Council by motion, Rule 23 of its Council was dispensed with and the proposed ordinance was referred to the General Committee of the Council. At the September 3, 1946 meeting, by motion, Rule 23 was again dispensed with and proposed Ordinance 10349 was placed before the Council. The General Committee recommended to the Council that the original of proposed

Page 766

Ordinance 10349 'do not pass' and submitted in lieu thereof Committee Substitute for proposed Ordinance 10349 with the recommendation that it 'do pass'. By motion the Charter requirement of reading on three separate days was dispensed with and the Committee Substitute for proposed [360 Mo. 386] Ordinance No. 10349 was placed on final passage. The Committee substitute was then passed, and as passed excluded from the Clay County area originally proposed to be annexed that area within the boundary lines of the towns of Avondale and Randolph; and it also extended the effective date of the annexation from January 1, 1949 to January 1, 1950.

The evidence in the case took a wide range. It has been examined but it is impossible to even refer to all of it within the limits of this opinion. Since 1909, when relator annexed some 34.2 square miles in Jackson County to attain a total area of 59.6 square miles, it has had but one small growth in area. With one small Jackson County extension of about 2.8 square miles, effective January 1, 1947, it now has a total area of 62.4 square miles. Relator's Central business district limited on the north by the Missouri River and lying substantially in the northwest corner of the city, is about 5 miles from relator's eastern city limits and about nine miles from the southern city limits. Relator is bounded on the west by the Kansas state line, and on the north by the center line of the Missouri River. In 1940 relator's population was 399,178, but is now reasonably estimated at 450,000 or more. Relator is an important business, industrial and residential city, is the center of, and the original city in a great metropolitan area. It is the trade center of a much larger area. In 1940 the population of that metropolitan area was 634,903. Relator's working population live all over that area as well as in Kansas City.

Respondent North Kansas City is primarily an industrial city. Such has been its history and development. In 1940 its resident population was 2688. That population is now estimated at 3500 to 4000. The record before us presents estimates that in respondent's many industries from 14,000 to 18,000 persons are employed. Many business firms in respondent purchase most of their merchandise in relator city. Respondent is located in low bottom land, south of the bluffs and north of the river; its present area is estimated at about four square miles. Of 858 employees in three of respondent's typical industries, a check revealed that 516 of such employees lived south of the river and 342 lived north of the river. Respondent and its proposed annexation area is almost identical in area with the North Kansas City School District. Its proposed annexation area contains about 8 square miles lying north and northwest of respondent, and includes that acreage upon which is now located relator's municipal water works plant, which lies just north of respondent.

From the southwest corner of respondent's city limits (which corner point is east of relator's municipal airport) the southerly line of respondent's city limits runs due east until it intersects the center line of the Missouri River. That exact point of intersection is difficult to determine from the exhibits or the record. However, from that point it follows the center line of the river until it intersects [360 Mo. 387] the line of respondent's eastern city limits. The southwest corner of respondent's city limits is some distance north of the river. That small irregular area lying south of the south line of respondent's city limits (which runs due east and west) and north of the center line of the river, is included in relator's annexation area.

The area relator seeks to annex contains about 17.83 square miles (about 11,140 acres) in Gallatin Township, Clay County, Missouri, contiguous to and north of relator's present northern boundary. It is also contiguous to respondent and lies west, north and east of respondent. At its widest point north and south that area is about 5 1/2 miles, east and west it is about 7 miles. Largely the terrain of this area is gently rolling. Practically the only rough land in the area is the bluffs north of the river...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 practice notes
  • City of Hannibal v. Winchester, No. 50068
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 Junio 1965
    ...of McConnell v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 282 S.W.2d 518, and State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas Page 282 City, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S.W.2d 762. This appeal followed In effect, the trial court held that a constitutional charter city may only annex territory or alter its co......
  • Murphy v. Kansas City, Missouri, No. 18578-4.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • 28 Julio 1972
    ...City of Liberty v. Dealer's Transport Co., 343 S.W.2d 40 (Mo.En Banc 1961); State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S.W.2d 762 (1950). Thus, in the instant case an actual controversy does exist between plaintiffs and defendants, and plaintiffs' 347 F.......
  • Enlargement of Corporate Limits of City of Hattiesburg, Matter of, No. 89-CA-0135
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 29 Mayo 1991
    ...is such, then the discretion of the legislative body is conclusive. State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, Banc, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S.W.2d 762; Faris v. City of Caruthersville, Mo.App., 301 S.W.2d 63; State ex inf. Mallett ex rel. Womack v. City of Joplin, 332 Mo. 1193......
  • Anne Arundel County v. Annapolis, No. 47
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 10 Diciembre 1998
    ...People v. City of Burley, 86 Idaho 519, 520, 388 P.2d 996, 721 A.2d 231 998-99 (Idaho 1964); State ex rel. Taylor v. North Kansas City, 360 Mo. 374, 397, 228 S.W.2d 762, 773 (1950); Blanchard v. Bissell, 11 Ohio St. 96, 99 (1860); Bryant v. City of Charleston, 295 S.C. 408, 411, 368 S.E.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
54 cases
  • City of Hannibal v. Winchester, No. 50068
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 Junio 1965
    ...of McConnell v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 282 S.W.2d 518, and State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas Page 282 City, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S.W.2d 762. This appeal followed In effect, the trial court held that a constitutional charter city may only annex territory or alter its co......
  • Murphy v. Kansas City, Missouri, No. 18578-4.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • 28 Julio 1972
    ...City of Liberty v. Dealer's Transport Co., 343 S.W.2d 40 (Mo.En Banc 1961); State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S.W.2d 762 (1950). Thus, in the instant case an actual controversy does exist between plaintiffs and defendants, and plaintiffs' 347 F.......
  • Enlargement of Corporate Limits of City of Hattiesburg, Matter of, No. 89-CA-0135
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 29 Mayo 1991
    ...is such, then the discretion of the legislative body is conclusive. State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, Banc, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S.W.2d 762; Faris v. City of Caruthersville, Mo.App., 301 S.W.2d 63; State ex inf. Mallett ex rel. Womack v. City of Joplin, 332 Mo. 1193......
  • Anne Arundel County v. Annapolis, No. 47
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 10 Diciembre 1998
    ...People v. City of Burley, 86 Idaho 519, 520, 388 P.2d 996, 721 A.2d 231 998-99 (Idaho 1964); State ex rel. Taylor v. North Kansas City, 360 Mo. 374, 397, 228 S.W.2d 762, 773 (1950); Blanchard v. Bissell, 11 Ohio St. 96, 99 (1860); Bryant v. City of Charleston, 295 S.C. 408, 411, 368 S.E.2d ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT