State v. City of Maplewood

• Decision Date: 03 April 1917
• Docket Number: No. 14550.,14550.
• Citation: 193 S.W. 989
• Parties: STATE ex Inf. LASHLY, Pros. Atty., v. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

193 S.W. 989

STATE ex Inf. LASHLY, Pros. Atty., v. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD.

No. 14550.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 3, 1917.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; G. A. Wurdeman, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Proceeding by the State of Missouri on the information of Arthur V. Lashly, Prosecuting Attorney for the County of St. Louis, against the City of Maplewood. From a judgment for defendant quashing the writ, relator appeals. Affirmed.

Hugh D. McCorkle and Edwin Rosenthal, both of St. Louis, for appellant. Wilfred Jones and Amandus Brackmann, both of Maplewood, for respondent.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

This is a proceeding by the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis County, by information in the nature of quo warranto. The writ was issued and subsequently quashed by the circuit court.

By an ordinance approved April 16th, 1913, the council of the city of Maplewood provided for the extension of the city limits of that city, taking in adjoining property, part of which was vacant and unplatted, and claimed to be farm lands, part of it designated as additions and laid off into lots and blocks. The ordinance provided for a special election to be held by the voters of Maplewood on May 6th, 1913, for the purpose of voting upon the proposition to extend the corporate limits of that city as set out in the ordinance. The election was held and 566 voters voting, the ordinance was approved by a majority of 102 qualified voters. Thereafter the prosecuting attorney of St. Louis County, in which county the city of Maplewood is located, exhibited this information challenging the validity of the action of the council in extending the limits of the city. The information was filed in the circuit court of that county on June 16th, 1913.

Setting out the passage of the ordinance and its approval by the city, it is charged in the information that the ordinance is unreasonable, improper, oppressive and invalid for the following reasons, in substance:

First, that included in the proposed extension are wild, vacant and uncultivated lands unsuitable for city purposes and not needed for any lawful purpose of the city, and that other portions are devoted to agriculture and pasturage and others to quarrying, and a considerable portion subject to overflow.

Second, that its topography is such that it does not drain into or over the lands included in the city of Maplewood, nor are they necessary to any system of streets or sewers, nor for any city purpose whatever.

Third, that a large portion of the lands in the extension are sparsely settled and no part settled with the overflow population of Maplewood, nor has their value been in anywise increased by reason of their proximity to Maplewood; that such people as reside in this proposed extension are peaceable and law abiding and do not desire to be incorporated in the city and subjected to the burden of city taxation and would receive no benefit from being included in the city and that to include the proposed lands in the city would actually depreciate their value.

Fourth, that the inclusion of the lands into the city of Maplewood is not attempted in good faith but is an attempt to tax the value of the lands made so by their proximity to St. Louis to aid in the furtherance of enterprises begun and carried on for the benefit of the territory originally included within the limits of Maplewood; that such taxation would impose great hardship on the property owners in the proposed addition.

Fifth, and finally, that there exists no necessity for such extension to afford room for the growth and expansion of the city as there is already much vacant property within the corporate limits. It is also charged that the ordinance was passed without proper previous investigation and consideration.

By the answer and return it is averred that the ordinance was duly passed, the publication of notice of the election was duly made, the election was held, and that of 566 votes cast, 334 were voted in favor of the ordinance and 232 voted against it, and that the returns of the election were duly canvassed by the council and by resolution duly introduced and passed, the council declaring that as the result of the election the limits of the city had been duly extended, proclamation being issued to that effect, as provided by law, May 8th, 1913, and that thereafter the defendant city and its officers have exercised and assumed the powers and authority over the territory as in the information alleged. The return further avers that the extension of the limits of the city was such as in the judgment and discretion of the mayor and council would redound to the benefit not only of the original city but of the adjacent territory, and that such in fact was the result, and that in all respects the extension was fair, just, reasonable and within the purview of the statutes in such case made and provided; that Maplewood is a rapidly growing city, its growth and increase of population steady; that within its limits there are improved streets, granitoid sidewalks, storm and sanitary sewer systems, and other improvements only to be had by municipal corporations for the benefit of the entire public; that the city maintains for public benefit an adequate lighting system and efficient police department, fire fighting department, water sytem, connection with a water and light company affording adequate supply of water and light at a lower rate than furnished consumers in the county outside of the limits of the city; that the drainage for a large part of the territory included in the extension is naturally through and over this new territory and also in the city of Maplewood and through and along the public streets of that city and discharges through a part of the city sewerage system, and that in other parts of the territory annexed are included extensions, sewers, streets and highways of Maplewood, extending to the River Des Peres, which is the natural course of drainage for the entire territory and it is especially advantageous to the city of Maplewood, as well as the surrounding community, that the city of Maplewood have free access through these streets and highways for the purpose of laying sewers and draining the territory. Various improvements of a public character as well as churches, factories, business houses and the like are alleged to be in the city for the trade and accommodation of the public that are used by the residents of the community and territory annexed by the extension, and that the defendant city has within its former limits the main buildings of the Maplewood School District and the High School, and that the entire territory annexed by the extension is within this school district; that substantially all of the territory annexed by the extension was at the date thereof plated for residence and city purposes and unsuitable for farm or grazing purposes, is in large demand for residence territory and used almost exclusively as such; by reason of all of which, it is averred in this return, the extension was not only valid, reasonable and proper, but advisable and necessary to both the defendant city and the community so annexed.

The reply admits the passage of the ordinance; that the election was called, notice thereof duly and timely published, but denies that the city gave the notice prescribed by the ordinance by posting notices of the election in 20 public places at least 15 days before the election and that by reason of this fact the election was illegal and invalid; admits that the city of Maplewood is a rapidly growing city and has the improvements stated in the return but denies each and every other allegation in the return.

Trial was had before the court, that part of the reply setting up the failure to post notices being stricken out on motion, to which action of the court no exception was saved. It was stipulated that the bill for the extension and the ordinance providing for it had been duly introduced and passed and that due notice had been given of the calling of the election; that that election was held, resulting as set out in the return, and was duly and legally declared by resolution and proclamation of the mayor, and that the boundaries of the city as fixed by the ordinance are correctly set forth in the information; that the blue print introduced in evidence correctly showed the location, size, ownership and platting of ...