State v. City of Carterville

Decision Date11 March 1916
Docket NumberNo. 1668.,1668.
Citation183 S.W. 1093
PartiesSTATE on Inf. of BATES, Prosecuting Attorney, ex rel. CENTER CREEK MINING CO. v. CITY OF CARTERVILLE et al.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; D. E. Blair, Judge.

Suit in the nature of quo warranto by the State, on information of S. W. Bates, Prosecuting Attorney of Jasper County, on the relation of the Center Creek Mining Company, against the City of Carterville, a municipal corporation, and others. Judgment sustaining demurrer to the complaint, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

R. F. Stewart, of Webb City, and R. M. Sheppard, of Joplin, for appellant. Baird & Gass, of Carterville, and Allen McReynolds, of Carthage, for respondents.

STURGIS, J.

The relator appeals from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to its petition. The suit is in the nature of a quo warranto against the city of Carterville, Jasper county, Mo., and its officers. The amended petition sets forth the names of the officers of said city, together with the title of the offices they are each purporting to hold, and alleges that each of said officers, without any legal right or authority, unlawfully usurped, used, held, and exercised the respective offices named therein in and for said city; that relator owns a tract of 40 acres of land in said city which has never been platted into lots or blocks, but is and has been used as mining land and is not adapted or suitable for any other purpose; that no public streets have been opened or maintained over or across said land, and no benefits are conferred on same by its being in said city; that in April, 1887, the county court of Jasper county, Mo., made an order attempting to incorporate the town of Carterville, including the plaintiff's said land. Said order is then copied in full, but it is sufficient to say that such order recites that, on petition of more than two-thirds of the inhabitants of a described territory, including the platted town of Carterville and this unplatted land, the court ordered that such territory be incorporated under the name and style of the town of Carterville and appointed the first trustees. The petition further alleges that said land of relator, embraced within the territorial limits of said town as attempted to be incorporated as aforesaid, was not at the date of said alleged incorporation any part or parcel of the platted town of Carterville, and that the same was not any part or parcel of the commons of said town, but at that time was open, unplatted land being used for mining purposes, and that the court, without any authority or jurisdiction, included and embraced said property within the bounds of the territory attempted to be incorporated; "that under the statute then in force said incorporation and said order were void and of no effect." The petition further alleges that the city of Carterville did not attempt to enforce the collection of taxes against relator's land until 1903, when a suit was filed for the taxes for the previous five years; that said suit resulted in a judgment for this relator because said land was not properly included and embraced within the corporate limits of said city; that no further attempt to enforce taxes against said land was made till in 1910, when a suit was filed for the taxes of the previous five years. The petition ends with the prayer for judgment that the aforesaid officers have unlawfully usurped and unlawfully hold their respective offices, and that said officers and said alleged city are attempting without legal right to cast upon the property aforesaid of the relator the burdens of taxation of the alleged city of Carterville, and that said respondents and each of them be ousted of their alleged jurisdiction and authority to exercise powers, duties, and authority of officers of an incorporated city as to the aforesaid real estate. The demurrer was sustained on the ground that, on the facts stated in the petition the relator was not entitled to the relief prayed for.

It will be readily seen that relator is in reality seeking to be relieved of the burdens of taxation incident to its land being within the corporate limits of the city of Carterville. The relator seeks this result, however, by a proceeding which, under the facts alleged, strikes at the legal existence of such city. The relator does not claim that any of the officers of said city are in any way disqualified, or that any of them have not been duly and legally elected. The basis of the claim that such officers are usurping and unlawfully holding and exercising the duties of their respective offices is that such city was never legally incorporated; "that, under the statute then in force, said incorporation and said order were void and of no effect," meaning the order of the county court incorporating said town of Carterville which is the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State ex rel. Kansas City v. Harris
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 Junio 1948
    ... ... State ex inf ... McKittrick v. Murphy, 347 Mo. 484, 148 S.W.2d 527 ... (4) Furthermore, relief from municipal taxation cannot be ... granted in a quo warranto proceeding against the city. State ... ex inf. Bates, Prosecuting Attorney ex rel. Center Creek ... Mining Co. v. Carterville, 183 S.W. 1093. (5) The two ... causes of action are not the same. The two cases are aimed at ... completely different things. The quo warranto proceeding ... attacks North Kansas City's municipal jurisdiction over ... its alleged annexation area; the bond suit attacks Kansas ... City's bond ... ...
  • State on Inf. Huffman v. Sho-Me Power Co-op.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 Enero 1946
    ... ... Harvester Corp., 223 Mo.App. 196, 17 S.W.2d 554; ... Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. Motter, 1 F.Supp. 464; ... United States v. Natl. City Bank of New York, 21 ... F.Supp. 791; Kennedy v. Industrial Accident Comm., ... 50 Cal.App. 184, 195 P. 267. (3) The rule of ejusdem generis ... 146, 72 S.W. 471; State ex ... rel. John v. Town of Westport, 116 Mo. 582, 22 S.W. 888; ... State on inf. Bates v. City of Carterville, 183 S.W ... 1093; State ex inf. Otto v. School District of ... Lathrop, 314 Mo. 315, 284 S.W. 135; State ex rel ... Worsham v. Ellis, 329 ... ...
  • State ex rel. Kansas City v. Harris
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 Junio 1948
    ...taxation cannot be granted in a quo warranto proceeding against the city. State ex inf. Bates, Prosecuting Attorney ex rel. Center Creek Mining Co. v. Carterville, 183 S.W. 1093. (5) The two causes of action are not the same. The two cases are aimed at completely different things. The quo w......
  • The State ex inf. Pulley v. Scott
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 Marzo 1925
    ... ... consolidation of the three districts into one, one of the ... three, the Lathrop District, was a city school district with ... an enumeration of more than two hundred children of school ... age, the necessary jurisdictional facts were absent, and ... franchise. State ex rel. v. Town of Westport, 116 ... Mo. 592; State ex rel. v. City of Carterville, 183 ... S.W. 1093; State ex rel. v. Miller, 113 Mo.App. 668 ... (7) Quo warranto will not lie to oust the officers ... of a de facto ... ...
  • 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