State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Hudspeth

Decision Date14 January 1957
Docket NumberNo. 2,No. 45265,45265,2
Citation297 S.W.2d 510
PartiesSTATE of Missouri ex rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. E. G. HUDSPETH et al., Defendants, Town of Norwood Court, Intervenor-Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Erwin F. Vetter, E. Gary Davidson, Clayton, for intervenor-appellant.

Robert L. Hyder, Bruce A. Ring, Jefferson City, for respondent.

STORCKMAN, Judge.

The Town of Norwood Court, a municipal corporation, has appealed from the order of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County overruling its motion to intervene in a condemnation action.

The petition in condemnation was filed January 20, 1955, by the State Highway Commission for the purpose of acquiring certain 'lands, properties and rights' in St. Louis County for highway purposes. The petition further prays for the appointment of commissioners 'to ascertain and assess the damages, if any, which the owners of said parcels of land or interests therein may sustain and the just compensation, if any, to which they may be entitled in consequence of the construction and maintenance of the public improvements described' in the petition.

On July 19, 1955, the Town of Norwood Court filed its motion to intervene as a party defendant, which motion reads as follows:

'Comes now petitioner herein, the Town of Norwood Court in the County of St. Louis, Missouri, an incorporated municipality located within said County, and moves the Court to enter its order authorizing petitioner to intervene herein as a party defendant for the following reasons, to-wit:

'1. Petitioner states that the representation of the applicant's or petitioner's interest in this proceeding by existing parties defendant is, or may be, wholly inadequate for the protection of the public interest, the public safety and public welfare of the residents and citizens of the Town of Norwood Court and the residents and citizens of the County of St. Louis, Missouri, your petitioner or applicant herein.

'2. Petitioner or applicant herein, the Town of Norwood Court, specifically states that it is, or may be, bound by a judgment or order in the within action adversely affecting its legal rights, powers and authority and adversely affecting the public interest, safety and welfare of the residents and citizens of the Town of Norwood Court residing within St. Louis County.

'3. Petitioner or applicant herein states that the highway proposed to be constructed as shown on the plans and profile filed of record and made a part of these proceedings is located within the Town of Norwood Court and traverses through said Town for a distance of approximately one-half (1/2) mile or eight (8) city blocks.

'4. Petitioner states that the Answer of defendant E. G. Hudspeth filed in the within proceedings alleges that the construction of said highway as proposed is in violation of Ordinance 15 of the Town of Norwood Court which prohibits the construction of a street or state highway within said Town of Norwood Court which shall extinguish access to, from, or across such street or highway.

'5. Petitioner states further that said Ordinance 15 of the Town of Norwood Court specifically declares that said Ordinance was adopted to 'prevent public calamity and to maintain the public welfare and provide freedom of movement of fire apparatus, police vehicles and law enforcement agencies or officers.'

'6. Petitioner states that the validity of said Ordinance, duly adopted by the Town of Norwood Court, a governmental subdivision of the State of Missouri, is drawn into question and that said Ordinance and the violation thereof affects the public interest, the public safety and the public welfare of the citizens of the Town of Norwood Court in St. Louis County, Missouri.

'Petitioner states that neither the Town of Norwood Court nor any of its officers, agencies or employees thereof are now a party to this proceeding.'

On September 30, 1955, the motion to intervene, having been theretofore submitted and duly and fully considered, was overruled by the court. On October 7, 1955, the Town filed its notice of appeal to this court.

Appellant's motion to intervene was accompanied by a pleading as provided by Sec 507.090, Subd. 3(1), RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. The pleading, denominated an answer, is quite extensive, consisting of 24 separately numbered paragraphs; however, it contains no prayer for relief. Due to the limited issue on this appeal it is not necessary to set out the allegations of the answer in detail. It is sufficient to note that the answer denied the right and authority of the State Highway Commission to proceed with the condemnation action and also contended that the plan of highway construction proposed was in violation of law and endangered the lives, property, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the Town of Norwood Court and of St. Louis County. The proposed construction was alleged to violate various provisions of the constitution of Missouri and of the United States, as well as Acts of the Congress of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Montgomery County
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • November 16, 1972
    ...217, 220 (1969). Thus, it has been held that a state highway commission is not a political subdivision, State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Hudspeth, Mo., 297 S.W.2d 510 (1957); Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Clayton, 226 Ark. 712, 292 S.W.2d 77 (1956); Wheat v. Platte City Ben.......
  • Ozark County School Dist. R-V of Ozark County v. Lay, R-V
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 4, 1962
    ...wil look to the well-pleaded allegations of the verified motion to intervene and the tendered answer. State ex rel. State Highway Commission of Mo. v. Hudspeth, Mo., 297 S.W.2d 510, 512; State ex rel. Duggan v. Kirkwood, 357 Mo. 325, 336, 208 S.W.2d 257, 261, 2 A.L.R.2d 216. See also Kozak ......
  • Ratermann v. Ratermann Realty & Inv. Co., 30541
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 20, 1960
    ...of the appellants' interest in any new issues which the appellants may seek to bring into the case, State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Hudspeth, Mo., 297 S.W.2d 510, appeal transferred Mo.App., 303 S.W.2d 703. See also Pine Lawn Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Pine Lawn, 365 Mo. 666, 285......
  • Shepherd v. Department of Revenue
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 9, 1963
    ...RSMo 1959, and V.A.M.S.2 See State ex rel. Gehrs v. Public Service Commission, 338 Mo. 177, 90 S.W.2d 390, State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Hudspeth, Mo.Sup., 297 S.W.2d 510, Parker v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 358 Mo. 365, 214 S.W.2d 529, Trokey v. United States Cartri......
  • 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