State v. Armstrong
Decision Date | 03 July 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 27322.,27322. |
Citation | 286 S.W. 705 |
Parties | STATE ex Inf. GENTRY, Atty. Gen., v. ARMSTRONG et al., Supervisors, etc. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and George W. Crowder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for relator.
Charles & Rutherford and L. A. Prichard, all of St. Louis, Martin J. Rasmussen, of Clayton, Greensfelder, Dyott & Grand, of St. Louis, Jesse L. Harnage, of Clayton, Arthur V. Lashly, of St. Louis, C. G. Baxter, of Clayton, J. H. Haley, of Bowling Green, and Richard F. Ralph, of Clayton, for respondents.
Seneca C. Taylor, of St. Louis, Wm. J. Kieley, of Jefferson City, E. L. Rothgranger and Robert C. Powell, both of St. Louis, amid curiae.
Nagel & Kirby and E. G. Curtis, all of St. Louis, for School District of Webster Groves.
Robert A. Roessell, of Webster Groves, for City of Webster Groves.
This suit started (as indicated by the statement of the learned Attorney General) as a friendly suit to test the validity of an act of the General Assembly for the year 1925, relative to the establishment and maintenance of sewer districts. During the friendly period of the suit, the Attorney General's office represented the state in an attack on the invalidity of the said act of 1925. The law (Act of 1925) provided for the organization and maintenance of sewer districts, as drainage districts are organized under what we call the Circuit Court Act (Laws 1913, p. 232). The sewer act will be found in the Laws of 1925; at page 343 et seq.
Distinguished counsel for prospective bond purchasers represented the other side of the controversy. This is to say, they suggest reasons for upholding the act. One of such argued the case here in connection with counsel for special communities in St. Louis county.
Friendliness, however, was not long to continue in the suit. Dissatisfied taxpayers rushed to the assistance of the Attorney General in his attack upon the law, and interested parties and communities (all as amici curie) rushed to the assistance of the counsel for prospective purchasers of bonds. So, what appeared to be friendly at first, has turned out to be a real contest. We do not mean to say that the learned Attorney General did not (in the first instance) fully suggest all the troublesome questions occasioned by this law (for he did) but subsequent briefs by friends of the court (upon both sides) have tended to add spice to the contest. It is frankly conceded that the act of 1925 applies to no county in the state, save and except St. Louis county. The wording is peculiar in some respects. The act consists of 40 sections, and is, and was passed as a general law. Laws of 1925, pp. 343 to 367. The enacting clause reads:
"An act to provide for the incorporation and organization of sewer districts in any county joining a city now or hereafter having a population of seven hundred thousand or more, defining the powers of such corporations, providing for the ascertainment of assessments and damages to the lands and other property in such districts, the designing and adoption of sewer plans in such districts and for the issuance of bonds and the levying of taxes by such districts."
The italics are ours. The most material, portions of the law are sections 1-6 of the law, which sections read:
court of such county, a petition ex parte in which shall be set forth the boundary lines of the proposed district, the name under and by which it shall be known and be incorporated, and the number of years it shall continue as a public municipal corporation; and the said petition shall contain a prayer that the lands and other property within such boundaries be declared a sewer district under the provisions of this act.
The time for the hearing, as indicated in the said notice, shall be such time as may previously have been designated by the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex Inf. Attorney-General v. Curtis
......State ex rel. v. Hackmann, 292 Mo. 27; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 541; State ex inf. v. Armstrong, 286 S.W. 705. (2) Said provision is unconstitutional in that it changes and attempts to create more than four classes of cities, and to diminish the powers conferred by general law on the various classes in regard to sewer systems, and to create a class of cities which lie partly within and partly ......
-
State ex rel. School Dist. No. 24 of St. Louis County v. Neaf
...... where a general law could be made applicable unless the. classification used is a necessary and reasonable one. Mo. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 53; City of Springfield v. Smith, 19 S.W.2d 1; Laws 1937, p. 547; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439; State ex inf. v. Armstrong, 286. S.W. 705; State ex rel. v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21;. Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. Fed. Reserve Bank,. 104 S.W.2d 385; Waterman v. Chicago Bridge & Iron. Works, 41 S.W.2d 575; State ex rel. v. Knight,. 21 S.W.2d 767; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307;. State v. Julow, 127 Mo. 163; State ex rel. ......
-
State ex rel. Fire Dist. of Lemay v. Smith, 39048.
......The purpose of the fire district act could have been accomplished by the enactment of a general law providing for the creation of fire districts in any territory where the erection of buildings has become so congested that fire protection is needed. State ex inf. Gentry v. Armstrong, 315 Mo. 298, 286 S.W. 705; Reals v. Courson, 164 S.W. (2d) 306; State v. Logan, 268 Mo. 169, 186 S.W. 979. (11) The act vests in the circuit court, a judicial tribunal, the determination of what circumstances justify the creation of a fire district, which is a legislative power. Essentially the ......
-
State ex rel. Jones v. Nolte, 38046.
......Louis County. This view is fully supported by the decision of this court. State ex rel. v. Armstrong, 315 Mo. 298, 286 S.W. 705; Rose v. Smiley, 296 S.W. 815; Colley v. Jasper County, 337 Mo. 503, 85 S.W. (2d) 57; Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank, 340 Mo. 1133, 104 S.W. (2d) 385, citing 242 Mo. 688, 129 Mo. 163. (10) The decisions of the court in prior cases under the Act of ......