State v. West End Light & Power Co.

Decision Date10 December 1912
PartiesSTATE, on Inf. of JONES, Circuit Attorney, v. WEST END LIGHT & POWER CO.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Information by the State of Missouri, on the relation of Seebert G. Jones, Circuit Attorney, in the nature of quo warranto, against the West End Light & Power Company. From a judgment for respondent, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions that judgment of ouster be entered.

Seebert G. Jones and Jones, Jones, Hocker & Davis, Jeptha D. Howe, and Forrest G. Ferriss, all of St. Louis, Elliott W. Major, of Jefferson City (Lon O. Hocker and B. Schnurmacher, both of St. Lopis, of counsel), for appellant. Watts, Williams & Dines and Lyon & Swarts, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

KENNISH, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis in favor of respondent in a proceeding by information in the nature of quo warranto. The information was filed in said court at the June term, 1909, by the circuit attorney of said city against the respondent corporation, the West End Light & Power Company. The purpose of the suit was to oust the respondent from exercising the franchise of using the streets of said city for the erection of poles and stringing of wires thereon, to be used in conducting the business of supplying electricity to the public for lighting and other purposes. An amended information was afterwards filed, to which the respondent in due time filed an answer and return. Thereupon plaintiff filed a reply and the respondent filed a supplemental answer and return, and, upon the issues thus framed, a trial was had and judgment entered as above. Plaintiff appealed to this court.

The pleadings cover 47 pages of the printed record, and are of too great length to be set out in this statement. In the view we take of the case, the material facts, as gathered from the pleadings are, briefly, as follows:

The information charges the respondent with claiming and exercising the franchise of using the streets and public places of the city of St. Louis for the erection of poles and stringing of wires thereon, for the purpose of supplying the public with electricity, without first having obtained authority by ordinance from the city so to do, and prays the court to cause the defendant to answer and state by what warrant of authority it claims to have, use and enjoy such franchise; that a judgment of ouster be rendered against respondent, ousting it from the exercise of such franchise. In its return to the information the respondent alleges that the city of St. Louis on the 15th day of March, 1884, being authorized by its charter, duly enacted Ordinance No. 12723. That ordinance, which is filed as an exhibit and made a part of the return, is in part as follows:

"An ordinance regulating the placing of wires, tubes or cables conveying electricity for the production of light or power along the streets, alleys and public places of the city of St. Louis.

* * * * * *

"Section 1. That no wires, tubes or cables conveying electricity for the production of light or power shall be placed along or across any of the streets, alleys or public places in the city of St. Louis, except as hereinafter provided.

"Sec. 2. That all such wires, tubes or cables, along or across any of the streets, alleys or public places of the city of St. Louis, shall be placed at such distances above or below the surface of the ground and secured in such manner as shall be prescribed by the board of public improvements.

"Sec. 3. That any person or persons, corporation or association desiring to place along or across any of the streets, alleys or public places of the city of St. Louis such wires, tubes or cables, shall file in the office of the board of public improvements an application therefor, stating in detail the streets, alleys or public places which said wires, tubes or cables are to occupy, and the manner in which said wires, tubes or cables are to be secured or supported and insulated, together with a plat showing the route of such wires, tubes or cables.

"Sec. 4. The board of public improvements is hereby authorized, upon the filing of the application and plat required by the preceding section, to grant a permit for such named, of the streets, alleys and public places therein named, with such restrictions, regulations and qualifications as may be prescribed by said board.

* * * * * *

"Sec. 10. No person or persons, corporation or association, shall be entitled to any of the privileges conferred by this ordinance, except upon the following conditions: That said person or persons, corporation or association, before availing himself or itself of any of the rights or privileges granted by this ordinance, shall file with the city register his or its acceptance of all the terms of this ordinance, and agree therein that he or it will file with the comptroller of the city, on the first days of January and July of each year, a statement of his or its gross receipts from his or its business arising from supplying electricity for light or power for the six months next preceding such statement, which shall be sworn to by such person or persons, or the president or secretary of such corporation or association; and further agree that he or it will, at the time of filing the statement with the comptroller, pay into the city treasury 2½ per cent. on the amount of such gross receipts up to the year 1890, and 5 per cent. on the amount of such gross receipts thereafter. And said person or persons, corporation or association shall at the time of filing said acceptance, also file with the city register his or its penal bond in the sum of $20,000 with two or more good and sufficient securities, to be approved by the mayor and council, conditioned that he or it will comply with all the conditions of this ordinance, or any ordinance which may be hereafter passed regulating the placing of wires, tubes or cables in the streets and alleys for the purposes named therein; that he or it will comply with all the regulations made by the board of public improvements having reference to the subject embraced in this or any other ordinance for the purposes herein named; that he or it will make the statements and payments required by the provisions of this section, and will save the city of St. Louis harmless and indemnified from all loss, cost or damage by reason of the exercise of any of the privileges granted by this ordinance or any other ordinance which may be hereafter passed relating to the subject-matter of this ordinance.

* * * * * *

"Sec. 13. The city reserves the right to alter, amend or repeal this ordinance at any time."

It is further alleged: That on the 14th day of February, 1885, while the said ordinance was in full force and effect, Browning, King & Co., a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Utilities Co., 34073.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1936
    ...be brought at the relation of the city of California. State ex inf. v. Mo. Util. Co., 53 S.W. (2d) 394, 331 Mo. 337; State ex inf. v. West End L. & P. Co., 246 Mo. 653; Kavanaugh v. St. Louis, 220 Mo. 517; State ex inf. v. Ry. Co., 140 Mo. 539; State ex inf. Atty. Gen. ex rel. City of Leban......
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Corp., 36189.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 20, 1943
    ... ... Sikeston v. Mo. Utilities Co., 53 S.W. (2d) 394, 331 Mo. 337; State ex inf. Jones v. West End L. & P. Co., 152 S.W. 76, 246 Mo. 653; State ex rel. Kansas City v. Ry. Co., 41 S.W. 955, 140 ... because, when the ordinance granting such franchise was passed, the city council was without power to grant an electric franchise. Special Charter, Laws, 1871, 478; Secs. 951, 952, R.S. 1879; City f Carthage v. Carthage Light Co., 97 Mo. App. 20, 70 S.W. 936; State ex rel. City of Springfield v. Springfield Water Co., 131 ... ...
  • State ex inf. McKittrick ex rel. City of California v. Missouri Utilities Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 8, 1936
    ... ... State ex ... inf. v. Mo. Util. Co., 53 S.W.2d 394, 331 Mo. 337; State ex ... inf. v. West End L. & P. Co., 246 Mo. 653; Kavanaugh v. St ... Louis, 220 Mo. 517; State ex inf. v. Ry. Co., ... The respondent says that its bondholders are ... necessary parties. The Community Power & Light Company, which ... owns all of respondent's common stock except ... director's qualifying ... ...
  • Union Elec. Co. v. City of St. Charles
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1944
    ... ... 394; American Mfg. Co. v. St ... Louis, 192 S.W. 399; State ex rel. American Mfg. Co ... v. Reynolds, 270 Mo. 589, 194 S.W. 878. (2) ... specially named in the statute delegating to such cities ... power to impose such taxes. The tax purportedly levied by the ... ordinance is ... class to tax the businesses of "light and power ... companies" does not authorize the taxing of persons ... 6293, XVI and XVII, R.S. 1939; ... State ex inf. Jones v. West End L. & P. Co., 246 Mo ... 653; St. Louis v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 155 ... ...
  • 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