State v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 29 March 1902
• Citation: 68 S.W. 900,169 Mo. 31
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

68 S.W. 900

169 Mo. 31

STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.¹

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 29, 1902.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — DONATIONS TO PRIVATE PARTIES — PAYMENT FOR WATER PIPE — ORDINANCES — TITLE — APPEAL.

1. A city ordinance, providing for an appropriation to repay property owners for a water pipe which they, with the consent and under the supervision of the water department and with the understanding that the city would thereafter refund the cost of the same, had built to connect with the city pipes, was not repugnant to St. Louis Charter, art. 3, § 30, prohibiting the assembly from relieving any citizen from any lawful tax or burden, or from authorizing the payment of any demand not lawfully authorized and audited, or damages for injuries to person or property, except by ordinance adopted by a two-thirds vote; nor was it a donation, within Const. art. 4, § 47, providing that the general assembly cannot authorize any city to lend its credit or grant public money in aid of any individual, association, or corporation; nor was it forbidden by article 10, § 3, providing that taxes may be levied and collected for public purposes only.

2. The ordinance was not prohibited by article 6, § 27, of the charter, providing that the assembly cannot directly contract for any public work or improvement, or repairs thereof.

3. The subject of the ordinance was sufficiently expressed in the title, "An ordinance for the relief of [naming the property owners]."

4. In determining whether an ordinance violates a city charter, the court on appeal will not consider grounds of repugnancy under sections of the charter not cited in the record.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; D. D. Fisher, Judge.

Suit in equity by the state, on the relation of the attorney general, against the city of St. Louis and others, to restrain the payment of money appropriated by ordinance. From a judgment dissolving a temporary injunction and dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Herman A. Haussler and Charles S. Reber, for appellant. B. Schnurmacher and Kehr & Tittman, for respondents.

BRACE, P. J.

This is a suit in equity by the attorney general to restrain the treasurer of the city of St. Louis from paying out of the treasury of said city the sum of $1,050, pursuant to an ordinance of said city adopted on the 28th of April, 1896, which ordinance is as follows:

"An ordinance for the relief of C. W. Rutledge, F. W. Mott, William C. Uhre, Al. Wenzlich, J. G. Zimmerman, and F. Louis Soldan.

"Whereas, C. W. Rutledge, F. W. Mott, William C. Uhre, Al. Wenzlich, J. G. Zimmerman, and F. Louis Soldan did lay, under the inspection of the water department, a six-inch cast iron water pipe, with necessary valves and appurtenances, on Flad avenue, from Grand avenue to Vandeventer avenue, in advance of the extension of the water pipe system; and whereas, said pipe now forms a necessary part of the waterworks distribution system: Therefore, be it ordained by the municipal assembly of the city of St. Louis, as follows:

"Section 1. The auditor is hereby authorized and directed to draw his warrant on the city treasurer for the sum of $1,050 in favor of C. W. Rutledge, F. W. Mott, William C. Uhre, Al. Wenzlich, J. G. Zimmerman, and F. Louis Soldan, and take their receipt in full for any and all claims against the city on account of water pipe on Flad avenue, from Grand avenue to Vandeventer, which pipe thereupon shall become the property of the city and a part of the distribution system of the waterworks. Said amount to be charged to appropriation for the relief of C. W. Rutledge, F. W. Mott, Wm. C. Uhre, Al. Wenzlich, J. G. Zimmerman, and F. Louis Soldan.

"Sec. 2. There is hereby appropriated and set apart out of the municipal pipe fund, for the relief of C. W. Rutledge, F. W. Mott, William C. Uhre, Al. Wenzlich, J. G. Zimmerman, and F. Louis Soldan, the sum of $1,050.

"Sec. 3. There is hereby appropriated and set apart out of the waterworks revenue to water pipe fund the sum of $1,050."

It is claimed "that said ordinance is repugnant to section 27 of article 6 and section 30 of article 3 of the charter of said city, and to the constitution of the state of Missouri." The facts of the case are substantially as follows: In November, 1894, the owners of property abutting Flad avenue, which is a street running westwardly from Grand avenue, were in need of water from the city waterworks. The city had a water pipe in Grand avenue, but none in Flad avenue; and, as the revenues of the water department were then being expended in the construction and enlargement of its works, it was not at the time prepared to lay a water pipe in Flad avenue; but Mr. Holman, the water commissioner, representing the city, gave consent and permission to the property owners to lay in Flad avenue, from Grand avenue to Vandeventer, at their own expense, a six-inch cast iron water pipe, conforming to the specifications and to be laid under the supervision and inspection of the water department, "the understanding being," as Mr. Holman says, "that the city was under no obligation to pay for this pipe, but that when a sufficient number of houses existed on that street the department would prepare and present to the municipal assembly an ordinance for the refunding of the cost of the pipe laid." Under the permission and consent thus given the property owners laid the pipe under the supervision of the department. Mr. Ben C. Adkins, the first assistant engineer of the city waterworks, had...