American Tobacco Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

157 S.W. 502, 247 Mo. 374, 1912 Mo. LEXIS 68
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedDecember 31, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 157 S.W. 502 (American Tobacco Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Tobacco Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co., 157 S.W. 502, 247 Mo. 374, 1912 Mo. LEXIS 68 (Mo. 1912).

Opinion

STATEMENT.

WOODSON, J.

This action was instituted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, in October, 1909,. [393]*393by the American Tobacco Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State, of New Jersey, duly authorized to do business in this State, and the American Car Company, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, plaintiffs, against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, the St. Louis, Oak Hill & Carondelet Railway Company, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, corporations organized and existing under the laws of this State, and the city of St. Louis, a municipal corporation, defendants.

The Tobacco Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of tobacco, and the Car Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cars for street railways; the railroad companies are common carriers of freight and passengers for hire, and the city of St. Louis exists and is controlled by a special charter.

The object of the suit was to enjoin the railway ■companies, and each of them, from complying with or ■carrying out the provisions of four ordinances, Nos. 24358, 24359, -24360 and 24361, enacted by the city of St. Louis, relating to the separation of certain grade ■crossings, at and in the vicinity of the intersections ■of said defendants’ lines of railroad with Tower Grove .avenue, Park avenue, Old Manchester road, and other .streets of the city, in that vicinity, and to enjoin the city from requiring said railroad to comply with said ■ordinances.

The general object and purpose of said ordinances was to compel said railroad companies to depress their tracks from twenty-two to twenty-five feet below the present grade crossings of said streets and avenues, .and to construct and maintain retaining walls, bridges .-and viaducts along and over said tracks at the places ■aforesaid.

The plaintiffs own about thirty acres of land adjacent to or near the intersection of said railroads with the streets and avenues before mentioned, upon [394]*394which they have constructed' and maintained large-manufacturing plants, worth about three and a quarter million of dollars. Their said plants are connected with said railroads by means of spurs or switch tracks,, which furnish them ample transportation and shipping facilities for all the raw material and the finished product of their factories, which aggregates from eighteen to twenty thousand carloads in carload lots annually. Practically the same is true of the car works.

The suit was brought jointly on behalf of the plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, who might desire to join in the proceeding.

The pleadings in the case are exceedingly lengthy,, covering about one hundred and sixty-five printed pages; and for that reason, among others, we will not undertake to set them out, but will sufficiently outline the issues tendered as to present the questions of fact and the propositions of law to be determined.

The petition sets out the four ordinances previously mentioned, and since almost every section of each and all of them is challenged for one cause or another, we deem it best to copy them here.

Ordinance No. 24358, approved April 8, 1909, is in words and figures as follows:

“An Ordinance to Provide for the Lowering of the Tracks of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company at its Crossing, at Tower Grove Avenue, Park Avenue and Old Manchester Road and to Abolish said Grade Crossings and to Provide Penalties for a Violation of this Ordinance.
“Be it ordained by the Municipal Assembly of the City of St. Louis as follows: .
“Section One. — The Missouri Pacific Railway Company is hereby required to lower its tracks at the crossing thereof on Park avenue, Old Manchester road and Tower Grove avenue/ and to construct for said [395]*395streets over and above said tracks a substantial steel bridge, of design and character as to material and •workmanship approved by the Board of Public Improvements of the city of St. Lonis. Said bridge may have a rise, to permit drainage, of two feet in- the center above the extremities at either side, which extremities shall not be above the present grade of said streets and the elevation of said bridge at the center from the lowest chord thereof to the top of rail beneath shall be not less than twenty feet.
“Section Two. — The work of lowering the tracks shall commence within six months from the date of approval of this ordinance, and after said work has been commenced it shall be continuously prosecuted and the same shall be fully and finally completed on or before the thirty-first day of December A. D. nineteen hundred and ten, unless prevented by strike, or restrained by injunction or other order or process by a court of competent jurisdiction. The time during which said railway company shall be prevented by strike or strikes, or legal proceedings as aforesaid, shall be added to the time hereby limited for the completion of said work, provided said railway company give notice in writing to the city counselor of the city of St. Louis, of the institution of said legal proceedings, whereupon the city of St. Louis shall be permitted on behalf of said railway company to take part in the defense of any suits or proceedings brought by any person or persons seeking to enjoin or restrain, or in any manner interfere with the prosecution of said work, and move for dissolution of such injunction and restraining order and for any other proper order in such suit.
‘ Section Three. — The said railway company shall and is hereby required at its own proper cost and expense to build and construct retaining walls that may be necessary to protect the streets or private property from falling into such excavation as may be made. [396]*396Said retaining walls to be constructed of such dimension, sucb material and such workmanship, as shall be approved by the Board of Public Improvements of the city of St. Louis, provided that said railway company may make connections with any private property along the line of its said road between Chouteau avenue and Kingshighway, and for that purpose may build tracks or elevated switches from its tracks into such private property, subject to the directions of the Board of Public Improvements.
“Section Pour. — It shall not be lawful for the Missouri Pacific Railway Company to operate any of its engines, cars or trains on, upon or across the surface of the streets heretofore named in this ordinance, namely: Park avenue, Old Manchester road and Tower Grove avenue, after the thirty-first day of December A. D., nineteen hundred and ten, unless the time for completion of the depression of said tracks is delayed as provided in section two of this ordinance.
“Section Five. — Said railway company shall repair, keep and maintain said bridge as is provided for, to be constructed by said railway company in this ordinance, without additional charge or cost to the city of St.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Maurer v. Werner
748 S.W.2d 839 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)
Schweig v. City of St. Louis
569 S.W.2d 215 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)
State Ex Rel. Kansas City v. Public Service Commission
524 S.W.2d 855 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1975)
State Ex Rel. Powers v. Donohue
368 S.W.2d 432 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1963)
Onka v. Butkovich
294 S.W.2d 357 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1956)
Holland Furnace Company v. City of Chaffee
279 S.W.2d 63 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1955)
Baum v. City of St. Louis
123 S.W.2d 48 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1938)
Wabash Ry. Co. v. City of St. Louis
64 F.2d 921 (Eighth Circuit, 1933)
Connersville Hydraulic Co. v. City of Connersville
173 N.E. 641 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1930)
Kansas City v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.
25 S.W.2d 1055 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)
Des Moines City Railway v. City of Des Moines
216 N.W. 284 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1927)
City of Birmingham v. Louisville N. R. Co.
112 So. 742 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
State Ex Rel. Wabash Railway Co. v. Public Service Commission
267 S.W. 102 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1924)
Heman Construction Co. v. Lyon
211 S.W. 68 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1919)
City of Newport v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
192 S.W. 838 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1917)
City of Emporia v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
147 P. 1095 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 S.W. 502, 247 Mo. 374, 1912 Mo. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-tobacco-co-v-missouri-pacific-railway-co-mo-1912.