State v. Wiethaupt
Decision Date | 17 December 1910 |
Citation | 133 S.W. 329,231 Mo. 449 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. UNITED RYS. CO. et al. v. WIETHAUPT et al., Judges. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
In Banc. Prohibition by the State, on the relation of the United Railways Company and another, against John W. Wiethaupt and others, judges of the County Court of St. Louis County, to prohibit respondents from entertaining jurisdiction of a condemnation proceeding. Writ awarded.
Boyle & Priest, J. C. Kiskaddon, and T. M. Pierce, for relator United Rys. Co. Geo. W. Wolff, for relator Bluff Scenic Ry. Co. Stevens & Stevens and A. E. L. Gardner, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding in this court by which the relators ask a writ of prohibition to go to the respondents, the judges of the county court of St. Louis county, to prohibit them entertaining jurisdiction of a matter brought into that court on the petition of Jacob Studt, Jr., and others, asking that certain property of the relators be condemned and taken for a public wharf and ferry landing. The proceeding in the county court of which relators complain is founded on an act of the General Assembly entitled "An act to amend article 1, of chapter 107 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1899, entitled `Ferries,' by adding six new sections thereto to be known as sections 7447a, 7447b, 7447c, 7447d, 7447e, and 7447f, relating to the establishment of wharfs, piers and ferry landings on the waters of this state whose banks are touched or bordered by the public highways of this state now or which may hereafter be established outside of incorporated cities, towns or villages, giving the county courts of said counties the right to condemn and appropriate land for such purposes." Approved June 1, 1909. Laws 1909, p. 511. Relators contend that that act is unconstitutional, being in violation of sections 20 and 30, art. 2, and section 28, art. 4 of the Constitution (Ann. St. 1906, pp. 146, 166, 185), in certain particulars stated in their petition.
The first and second sections of the act are as follows:
Section 3 provides that on the day named the county court shall proceed to hear the evidence, and "if the court finds that said wharf, pier or ferry landing is necessary for public use as aforesaid" it shall order the county surveyor to immediately lay off the wharf, pier, or ferry landing, and if he can agree with the owners as to the price to be paid for the property taken or damages for the same he is to report it to the court, and if the owners will not agree he must so report, whereupon the county court will appoint three commissioners to assess the damages, and, when the commissioners make their award, "the county court or the petitioners, upon an order of the county court, shall immediately pay or tender to the owner or owners of the land so appropriated the amount of damages so awarded to each of said land owners, and the county shall be entitled to the immediate possession of the land condemned for the purposes aforesaid." Section 4 provides that if the owners are not satisfied with the award of the commissioners they may demand a jury to assess the damages, and thereupon a jury of six men may be impaneled "to try the question of damages." And section 5 provides that either the petitioners or the landowners may appeal to the circuit court for a trial on the question of damages, but neither the application for the jury in the county court, nor the appeal to the circuit court, shall operate as a supersedeas or prevent the county court from taking immediate possession of the land. There is no appeal allowed except on the question of damages and no provision for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Arkansas Lumber Co.
...does not impinge on constitutional prohibitions." St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. loc. cit. 616, 31 S. W. 1045; State ex rel. v. Wiethaupt, 231 Mo. loc. cit. 460, 133 S. W. 329. Judged by this rule, regard being had to the reason and wisdom of it, we would not say that so palpable an error so......
-
State v. Roach
...on constitutional prohibitions." This rule has been quoted by this court many times with entire approval. State ex rel. v. Wiethaupt, 231 Mo. loc. cit. 459, 133 S. W. 329; State ex rel. v. Assurance Companies, 251 Mo. loc. cit. 294, 158 S. W. 640, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 955; State v. Distillin......
-
Young v. Greene County.
...reference to a section sought to be repealed, if employed alone, must be exact. Southard v. Short, 8 S.W. (2d) 903; State ex rel. v. Wiethaupt, 231 Mo. 460. (b) Because there is more than one subject contained in the act in that it not only sets the compensation of county court judges, but ......
-
Billis v. State
...being heard thereon, by petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire." Id. 168 S.W.2d at 92 (quoting State ex rel. United Railways Co. v. Wiethaupt, 231 Mo. 449, 459, 133 S.W. 329, 331). Furthermore, where the title is restrictive, the bill must be restrictive. Hunt v. Armour & Co., 345 M......