State v. County Court

Decision Date19 January 1891
Citation102 Mo. 531,15 S.W. 79
CourtMissouri Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE ex rel. KANSAS CITY PARK-DISTRICT v. COUNTY COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY.

Act Mo. (Laws 1889) comprising chapters 30, 31, Rev. St. Mo. 1889, was entitled "An act to revise and amend chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1879, and the amendatory acts thereto, entitled `Of Cities, Towns, and Villages.'" Sections 1726-1761 are new, and provide for the organization of park-districts in every county in which there is a city of not less than 100,000 nor more than 300,000 inhabitants, every such district to include such city and territory adjacent, not to exceed 70 square miles. The park-district is authorized to appropriate land for parks, boulevards, and avenues; to reconstruct, improve, and adorn all roads and highways; to levy special taxes; to pass ordinances regulating parks and highways; to issue municipal bonds; to levy a tax of 1 per cent. per annum on all real estate; and to receive 30 per cent. of the county taxes on saloons and dramshops within the park-districts. Held, that sections 1727-1761 are not within the title of the act, and are void, under Const. Mo. 1875, art. 4, § 28, providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.

Mandamus.

From 1879 to 1889 there was a collection of statutory enactments included in chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1879, entitled "Of Cities, Towns, and Villages." The general assembly, at its session in 1889, revised and amended that chapter by a bill entitled "An act to revise and amend chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri 1879, and the amendatory acts thereto, entitled `Of Cities, Towns, and Villages.'" The bill, as passed, constitutes chapters 30 and 31 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1889. In addition to other amendments of the old chapter 89 by this revising bill, there were added to article 7 of said chapter, entitled "City Parks," 35 new sections, numbered from 1727 to 1761, inclusive. These new sections provide for the organization and management of public corporations, to be known as "park-districts," in every county of this state in which there is, or in which there may hereafter be, a city containing not less than 100,000 nor more than 300,000 inhabitants, every such park-district to include such city and territory adjacent thereto. Section 1727. The general purpose of said corporations is declared to be to establish parks, and improve and build roads, highways, and bridges within their limits. By the terms of these new sections, if it were desired by the city and county authorities wherein the required conditions of population existed to organize such a park-district, it should be done in the following manner: The common council of said city should select two persons, and the county court of the county two persons, all of whom must be residents of the district, who, together with the mayor of such city, should constitute a board of park commissioners, and who, after organization as provided by the bill, (section 1729,) should locate and define the boundaries of such park-district, including the city, and so much of the adjacent territory as said park commissioners might select, not to exceed in all 70 square miles, and should make and file a plat thereof; whereupon the inhabitants of the territory included within the boundaries of such park-district would become, by operation of law, a body politic and corporate by the name and style of "____ [the name of said city] Park-District," and the board of park commissioners so chosen would constitute the corporate authorities thereof. Said sections further provide that the money necessary to carry out the purpose of any such park-district should be raised by the levy of a tax upon all the lands within the district, and by requiring the county court of such county to turn over to the park authorities 30 per cent. of the money received by the county from dram-shop licenses within such park-district. Section 1753, Rev. St. 1889, reads as follows: "Such board of park commissioners shall, during the month of April in each year, determine by ordinance the rate of taxation which it will be necessary to levy in order to raise the amount of money that will be required for general expenditure within such park-district for public purposes during the ensuing fiscal year: provided, such rate shall not exceed one-tenth of one per cent. per annum. The board of park commissioners shall forward a certified copy of such ordinance to the county court of such county. Such county court shall annually levy such tax upon all the real estate, and improvements thereon, located within such park-district, and cause the same to be collected in like manner as county taxes may be collected." The relator, Kansas City Park-District, having organized in pursuance of said sections, duly applied to the county court of Jackson county for the levy and collection of the tax provided for by section 1753. The county court refused to make said levy. The relator applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the levy, whereupon this court issued its alternative writ to that end, the return to which has challenged ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • State v. Bixman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 5, 1901
    ...has made the title the exclusive index to the legislative intent." City of Kansas City v. Payne, supra; State v. County Court of Jackson Co., 102 Mo. 531, 15 S. W. 79; State v. Schofield, 41 Mo. 39; State v. County Court of Marion Co., 128 Mo. 427, 30 S. W. 103, 31 S. W. 23; Witzmann v. Rai......
  • Edwards v. Business Men's Assurance Co., 38104.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 15, 1942
    ...43 S.W. (2d) 813; Fidelity Adjustment Co. v. Cook, 339 Mo. 45, 95 S.W. (2d) 1162; State ex rel. Kansas City Park Dist. v. County Court, 102 Mo. 531, 15 S.W. 79; Sutherland on Statutory Construction (Lewis' Ed.), sec. 269; Maclean v. Brodigan, 172 Pac. 375; Pierce v. Solano County, 217 Pac. ......
  • Graves v. Purcell, 34169.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 30, 1935
    ...upon its own peculiar facts. [Witzmann v. Southern Railway Co., 131 Mo. 612, l.c. 618, 33 S.W. 181; State ex rel. v. Jackson County, 102 Mo. 531, l.c. 537, 15 S.W. 79.] [3] Coming now to a consideration of the "County Budget Law" here in question it must be observed that the title to the la......
  • Sherrill v. Brantley, 30783.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 22, 1933
    ......BRANTLEY, Doing Business as ATLAS PRINTING COMPANY, Appellant. . No. 30783. . Supreme Court of Missouri. . Division One, December 22, 1933. .         Appeal from Circuit Court of ...State ex rel. Hawes v. Mason, 153 Mo. 49; State ex rel. Tel. Co. v. Atkinson, 271 Mo. 42; State ex rel. ...252). State ex rel. v. County Court, 128 Mo. 441; State ex rel. v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356. (b) Since the title to the amendatory Act ......
  • 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