State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley

Decision Date10 July 1967
Docket NumberNo. 52776,52776
Citation417 S.W.2d 1
PartiesSTATE ex rel. George SCHWAB, Relator, v. James T. RILEY, Special Judge, Circuit Court of Moniteau County, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

John C. Kibbe, California, Mo., John W. Inglish, Cullen Coil, Jefferson City, Carson, Inglish, Monaco & Coil, Jefferson City, of counsel for respondent.

Roger D. Hines, Columbia, for relator.

HOLMAN, Chief Justice.

In this original proceeding in prohibition relator seeks to prevent the respondent, as Special Judge of the Circuit Court of Moniteau County, from proceeding further in the case of City of California, Missouri, vs. Walter H. Oesterly et al. Relator is a defendant in that case. The regular judge overruled a motion to dismiss, and respondent overruled a motion to stay proceedings, and we thereafter issued our provisional rule upon petition of relator.

The facts have been stipulated and a brief statement thereof will suffice for our decision. The City of California, Missouri (hereinafter sometimes called the 'city'), is a city of the fourth class. Relator is a resident, property owner, and taxpayer of said city. On December 5, 1966, the board of aldermen of the city passed Ordinance No. 801 which directed the city to institute condemnation proceedings to acquire several hundred acres of land located outside the city limits for use in constructing and maintaining sewage lagoons thereon. Also directed to be acquired were easements a considerable distance in length for roadway and sewer line purposes.

On December 6, 1966, the city filed its petition, which became Case No. 4744, seeking to condemn the property and easements heretofore mentioned. On January 12, 1967, relator and others filed a petition for declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief against the city in which relator and the other plaintiffs alleged that the ordinance heretofore referred to was void for a number of reasons, including the contention that § 79.380 (statutory references are to RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.) does not authorize the taking of property for sewage lagoons. Also, on January 12, 1967, upon motion of relator and others, the regular judge was disqualified in the condemnation proceedings and respondent was thereafter assigned to preside in that case. On the morning of January 25, 1967, respondent overruled the motion filed by relator and certain other defendants to stay proceedings in Case No. 4744 until after the declaratory judgment suit (No. 4750) was decided. Later that day, relator filed his petition for prohibition, we issued a stop order, and on February 13, 1967, issued a provisional rule.

The primary contention of relator is that 'a city of the fourth class does not have the power to condemn private property outside its limits for use as sewerage lagoons or roadways.' He correctly asserts that '(t)he right of eminent domain is not inherent in municipalities and cannot be exercised by them without authority from the state.' In re Armory Site in Kansas City, Mo.Sup., 282 S.W.2d 464, 467. It is conceded that the city has the authority to condemn the easement for the sewer lines here involved. However, there is no statute which, in express words, gives it the authority to condemn a site for the construction of sewage lagoons. Our main task is to determine whether that right is necessarily implied from the wording of the applicable statutes.

There are two sections of the statutes which we think should be especially considered. Section 79.380, which was originally enacted in 1895, provides, in part, as follows: 'The board of aldermen may * * * purchase or condemn and hold for the city, within or without the city limits, within five miles therefrom all necessary lands for hospital purposes, waterworks, sewer carriage and outfall * * *.' Section 71.680, originally enacted in 1929, contains the following: 'In addition to their other powers for the protection of the public health, each city of the second, third, or fourth class of this state * * * may acquire by purchase, construction, lease, gift or otherwise, within or without the corporate limits of such cities * * * purification plants or sewage disposal plants for the purification of all sewage accumulating in such cities.'

In our consideration of the foregoing statutes we should bear in mind certain applicable general rules. 'Statutes granting the right of eminent domain are to be strictly construed. The rule is well settled in this state. The right is not to be implied or inferred from vague or doubtful language but must be clearly given in express terms or by necessary implication. * * * On the other hand, 'while eminent domain statutes are to be strictly construed so far as the power to condemn is concerned, yet they are not to be construed so as to defeat the evident purpose of the legislature.' State ex rel. Siegel v. Grimm, 314 Mo. 242, 284 S.W. 490, 493; 29 C.J.S., Eminent Domain, § 22, p. 806. Further, the doctrine of strict construction does not exclude a reasonable and sound construction of the statute under consideration.' State ex rel. Missouri Water Co. v. Bostian, 365 Mo. 228, 280 S.W.2d 663, 666. It has also been said that 'the rule of 'strict construction' has no definite or precise meaning. It has only relative application. It is not the opposite of liberal construction, and it does not require such a strained or narrow interpretation of the language as to defeat the object. The primary purpose of all statutory construction is to determine the intent of the legislature; and all such rules are but vassals to the liege sovereign intent.' Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Newingham, Mo.App., 386 S.W.2d 663, 665, 666. And we have said that '(s)tatutes relating to the same subject matter must be considered together. This rule applies even though the statutes are found in different chapters and were enacted at different times.' State ex rel. Smithco Transport Co. v. Public Service Commission, Mo.Sup., 316 S.W.2d 6, 12.

Respondent contends that the city is authorized by the statutes to condemn for the purposes here involved, and relies almost entirely upon the case of State ex rel. Asknew v. Kopp, Mo.Sup., 330 S.W.2d 882. He says we held in Kopp that §§ 71.680 and 79.380 authorized cities of the fourth class to condemn sites for sewage disposal plants within five miles of the city. Relator denies that Kopp so held and points to the fact that it is essentially a zoning case. We agree with the contention of respondent that the Kopp case, if sound, is decisive of the issue as to the city's right to condemn land for the construction of sewage lagoons. We held therein that §§ 71.680 and 79.380 gave fourth class cities that right. We note, however, that Kopp does not contain any analysis of those sections or any detailed discussion of the problem presented in the case at bar. In that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • City of Las Cruces v. El Paso Elec. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • October 23, 1995
    ...State ex rel. Missouri Cities Water Co. v. Hodge, 878 S.W.2d 819, 821 (Mo.1994) (en banc). See also State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, 417 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo.1967) (en banc); State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Hoester, 362 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Mo.1962) (en banc); City of Kirkwood v. Union Elec. Co.......
  • Bank of Crestwood v. Gravois Bank
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1981
    ...Broadway Corporation, 432 S.W.2d 245, 251 (Mo. 1968); Edwards v. St. Louis County, 429 S.W.2d 718, 722 (Mo. banc 1968); State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, 417 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Mo. banc 1967); State ex rel. Wright v. Carter, 319 S.W.2d 596, 599 (Mo. banc 1958). See Central Bank of Clayton v. State B......
  • State ex rel. Missouri Cities Water Co. v. Hodge
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1994
    ... ... The right to condemn can be exercised only upon delegation from the state. State ex rel. Schwab v ... Riley, 417 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 1967). Statutes delegating this right are strictly construed. As noted in Southwestern Bell Telephone Co ... ...
  • State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Pinkley
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 28, 1971
    ... ... State ex rel. Schwab v. Riley, Mo., 417 S.W.2d 1 ...         The Commission first seeks to justify its action on the grounds that by Article IV, § 30(b), ... ...
  • 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