The State ex rel. Skrainka Construction Company v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 09 May 1908
• Citation: 111 S.W. 89,211 Mo. 591
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. SKRAINKA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

111 S.W. 89

211 Mo. 591

THE STATE ex rel. SKRAINKA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 9, 1908

Peremptory writ denied.

Walther & Muench for relator.

(1) It was the intention of the framers of the amended charter of St. Louis that the boundary of the taxing district should be placed at a line midway between the street improved and the next parallel street, wherever that is practicable. Collier v. Western P. & S. Co., 180 Mo. 283. (2) The exception that if the property adjoining the street to be improved is divided into lots the district shall be so drawn as to include the entire depth of all lots fronting on the street to be improved, was not intended to apply where the lot fronting the improvement has a depth through to the next parallel street. (3) If the exception in the charter does apply to platted lots fronting the improvement and extending to the next parallel street, then it must apply to all such lots fronting the improvement. The division of a platted lot in ownership or usage cannot except it from the charter definition of the term "lot." State ex rel. v City, 183 Mo. 230; Collier v. Western P. & S. Co., 180 Mo. 283. (4) The intention of the framers of the law should be carried out, even though contrary to the strict letter of the law, and where a single section would conflict with the entire scope or manifest intent of the law, the literal construction of such section should be departed from in an effort to harmonize it with the other provisions of the act. Cole v. Skrainka, 105 Mo. 303; State ex rel. v. Heman, 70 Mo. 441; State ex rel. v Talty, 166 Mo. 529. (5) It is proper to consider the effect and consequences of a proposed interpretation of law to ascertain what is probably its true intent. Bowers v Smith, 111 Mo. 45; Lamar v. City, 128 Mo. 188; Chouteau v. Railroad, 122 Mo. 375; State ex rel. v. Slover, 126 Mo. 652. (6) Taxation, whether general or special, must be uniform. Independence v. Gates, 110 Mo. 374; K. C. Grading Co. v. Holden, 32 Mo.App. 490; Halpin v. Campbell, 71 Mo. 493. (7) Where a special tax results in inequality or injustice, every question of doubtful construction must be resolved against the tax. Halpin v. Campbell, 71 Mo. 493; Verdin v. City, 131 Mo. 26.

Charles W. Bates and David Goldsmith for respondents.

(1) The first question is whether the lots which were not changed by sale or use after they were platted, but which still remained as originally platted, and which admittedly fronted on Lee avenue, were properly assessed for their entire depth. This question is disposed of by the express provisions of the charter and the direct adjudications of this court. Lots in use as originally platted must be assessed to their entire depth. Collier v. Western, etc., Co., 180 Mo. 362; Meier v. St. Louis, 180 Mo. 391; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 183 Mo. 230. (2) Lots which, as originally platted, and also as now used, extend beyond the midway line, must be assessed for their entire depth. Collier v. Western, etc., Co., 180 Mo. 386; Asphalt Co. v. Haeussler, 100 S.W. 14. (3) Assessments for local improvements must be made against each lot separately. Fowler v. St. Joseph, 37 Mo. 238; Kemper v. King, 11 Mo.App. 126; Wolfort v. St. Louis, 115 Mo. 144. (4) The charter definition constitutes merely a prima-facie definition, and the word "lot" as used in the charter provision under consideration must be interpreted according to the ordinary definition of the word; and in the definition and application of the word the use to which land is put overrides divisional lines established by plats. Fitzgerald v. Thomas, 61 Mo. 500; Chouteau v. Thompson, 2 Ohio St. 123; Chester v. Eyre, 181 Pa. St. 642; Lax v. Peterson, 42 Minn. 214; Pitz v. Killingsworth, 20 Or. 432; Bohan v. Ozaukee Co., 88 Wis. 498.

OPINION

In Banc.

Mandamus.

GRAVES J.

This is an original action by mandamus, the general purpose of which is to require the city of St. Louis, the Board of Public Improvements of said city and the City Comptroller, to cancel certain tax bills which were issued to relator in payment of work done and material furnished in the reconstruction of a portion of Lee avenue in said city. The alternative writ was issued and return duly made, and the questions involved are ones which appear from these pleadings.

From the alternative writ it appears that the relator was the contractor for reconstructing a portion of Lee avenue in the city of St. Louis. That an ordinance authorizing said improvement had been duly passed, which ordinance is fully set out in the writ, but it is not necessary to set it out here, as the validity thereof is unquestioned. That relator had done the work and tax bills to pay therefor had been issued, but relator avers that the taxing district was not properly laid out and defined, and that thereby such tax bills are void, and he desires the cancellation thereof, and the reissuance of the same after a properly defined district has been made. The charges as to the illegality of the taxing district are couched in this language:

"That the assessment district for said work, upon which said special tax bills were issued, was not established in accordance with the provisions of the charter of said city and amendment thereof, in the following respects:

"That the total cost of said improvement of Lee avenue under the said ordinance amounted to $ 35,026.19, of which one-fourth to-wit, $ 8,756.57, has been assessed and made chargeable against the property fronting on the improvement on Lee avenue and three-fourths of said amount, to-wit, $ 26,269.62, has been assessed and made chargeable against the area of a district erroneously established by the said city and which district, so erroneously established, contains an area of 1,267,936 square feet. That the said assessment district (upon which said special tax bills were issued) was not established in accordance with the provisions of the charter of the said city of St. Louis in this:

"1. The property of the north side of said Lee avenue, throughout the length of said improvement, is situated in the McCune and Vandeventer addition to St. Louis, a plat of which subdivision was duly and legally certified and filed in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of the city of St. Louis on the 4th day of June, 1867, and is recorded in the office of the said Recorder of Deeds in plat book No. 7 at page 61. That in said recorded plat of said subdivision, the street bounding the subdivision on the south is designated as 'Moore' street. That subsequently by an ordinance of the said city of St. Louis, duly enacted and approved, the name of said street was changed to Lee avenue and is the street improved as aforesaid. That the names of the streets designated in said plat as 'Bryan,' 'O'Fallon' and 'Carolina' avenues have since, by duly enacted and approved ordinances of the city of St. Louis, been changed to 'Prairie,' 'Warne' and 'Fair' avenues, respectively. That block number one of said subdivision is also known as City Block number 2488, block number two as City Block number 3305, block number three as City blocks numbered 3577 and 3578, block number four as City Block number 3576 and block number five as City Block number 3575. That the lots in blocks three, four and five of said subdivision (City blocks 3578, 3577, 3576, 3575) as laid out on said plat, front on said Moore street (now Lee avenue) and have a depth southwardly of 217.17 feet. That in said plat the lots in block three of said addition are bounded on the north by a strip of land eight feet and four inches in width, and the lots in blocks four and five of said addition by a strip of land one foot wide, the said strip being designated upon the said plat and in the certificate appended thereto as being reserved for public use for street purposes whenever the owners of the property adjoining the strip on the north should dedicate an additional strip thirty feet in width off the south line of their property, the whole to be used as a public street, and the said reserved strip to be then dedicated for street purposes. That the adjoining property on the north of the said blocks of said subdivision was thereafter dedicated for a street, and by ordinance of said city of St. Louis, duly enacted and approved, a public street having a width of sixty feet, and known as Penrose street, was opened and established along the northern boundary of the lots in said subdivision, and that after the establishment of said street said lots as platted ran from Lee avenue to Penrose street. That the said Penrose street is the next parallel street north of said Lee avenue, the street improved. A copy of said recorded plat of said subdivision is hereto attached, marked Exhibit A, and made part hereof. That in the said blocks three, four and five of said subdivision, otherwise known as City blocks numbers 3578, 3577, 3576 and 3575, respectively, the said taxing district line was placed at the northern boundary line of lots four, five, six, twelve, thirteen and western half of lot eleven in City block 3575, lots three, four, seven, eight, twelve and western half of lot eleven in City block 3576, and lots three, four, five, eight, nine, thirteen, fifteen, sixteen, eighteen and twenty in blocks 3577 and 3578, said northern boundary line of said lots being the southern line of said Penrose street; that is to say, the said lots have been assessed their entire depth from Lee avenue, the said improved street, to Penrose street, the next parallel street to the north. That the remaining lots in said blocks (except lots one and two in block 3578) have been assessed from Lee avenue to a line midway between said Lee avenue and said Penrose street. That all of said lots in the said blocks are...