City of St. Louis v. Barthel

166 S.W. 267, 256 Mo. 255, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 412
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 2, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 166 S.W. 267 (City of St. Louis v. Barthel) 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
City of St. Louis v. Barthel, 166 S.W. 267, 256 Mo. 255, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 412 (Mo. 1914).

Opinion

WOODSON, P. J.

— This suit was duly instituted in tbe circuit court of tbe city of St. Louis to condemn certain lands particularly described in tbe petition for street purposes.

A trial was bad which resulted in a judgment for tbe city, and tbe defendants, J. E. Brawner, W. P. MeCrory and Anna M. Hilton, appealed tbe cause to this court.

Tbe common source of title, as I gather from the record, was Henry Elbreder, who owned tbe land and died intestate in tbe year 1860.

Tbe street in question was Compton avenue; and tbe strip of ground sought to be condemned was some [262]*262seven Mocks in length, and among other tracts was one thirty feet wide and some six hundred feet in length, claimed by the appealing defendants as belonging to them.

The city claims this particular strip of ground under a partition decree dedicating it for street purposes in the year 1874; while appellants claim through mesne conveyances from Elbreder.

The real contention of the parties to this appeal is fairly well stated by counsel for appellants in the following language:

“On November 14, 1908, respondent filed in the court below a petition for the condemnation as a public highway of respondent, of the west half of Compton avenue, as shown on the Elbreder partition plat and marked reserved thereon, and marked Anna M. Hilton, as owner, pursuant to ordinance on the plat attached to the report of the commissioners in the cause, which piece of land is 30 by 600 feet., The proceedings were regular and there is no conflict in the testimony or evidence nor any objection to any of the documentary evidence that challenges the sufficiency of any of it for the purpose for which it was intended, leaving only the proper construction of the pleadings, report of the commissioners and the evidence to be passed on by this court, to determine whether there had been a dedication or an acceptance by respondent of the same, if made, of said land, as a public highway, either by dedication shown by said commissioners’ plat, or by calls for Compton avenue as a bounding street in conveyances made by the heirs.”

As indicated by the foregoing statement of counsel, there is no dispute as to the facts; and since they are fully set out by counsel for respondent I will adopt their statement as the statement of the case, which is as follows:

[263]*263“Commissioners [in this suit] were duly appointed after proper service upon all parties who owned or claimed any interest in the property, and their report, together with plats attached thereto, which were furnished by the street commissioner of the city of St. Louis, under authority of ordinance, was filed in the circuit court on the 13th day of October, 1909. The plat attached to the report of the commissioners in this condemnation suit shows the following situation:
“That Compton avenue from Gravois avenue southwardly to Osage street was a public highway in the city of St. Louis of irregular width. At some places it was thirty feet wide; at others sixty feet wide. The purpose of this ordinance, as shown by the plat, was to make a street, with uniformly straight east-and-west lines, from Gravois avenue to Osage street, sixty feet wide. It shows that the center line of the proposed street was a straight line extending from Gravois avenue to Osage street, and'that to make it sixty feet wide through this entire length in some cases required the condemnation of thirty feet westwardly from this center line and in some cases thirty feet eastwardly from the said line; at other places it is already sixty feet wide. Compton avenue is a north-and-south street. The section of Compton avenue included within Ordinance 23567 from Gravois avenue to Osage street is crossed by the following east-and-west streets southwardly from Gravois avenue in the following order: Utah street, Cherokee street, Potomac street, Miami street, Winnebago street, Chippewa street, Keokuk street and Osage street. As the exceptions filed on the part of the defendant Hilton relate only to property which she claims, we shall describe the blocks bounded on the north by Winnebago, and on the south by Chippewa [264]*264street, a little more minutely. The plat appearing in the appellants’ abstract shows City Block 1619 and one-half of City Block 1622. The strip of land shown on this plat which Anna M. Hilton claims to own in fee, extends from the south line of Winnebago street to the north line of Chippewa street, a distance of six hundred feet, and has a width of thirty feet. This strip of land thirty feet wide is the western half of Compton avenue as established by Ordinance 23567. The eastern half of this street is shown on this plat with the following notation (which is very indistinct):
“ ‘Heirs of William B. Betts, deceased, viz.: Elizabeth L., William, Carrie, Leonard Betts, and Julia Parsons, wife of Charles T.’
“This strip of land has the same dimensions as the strip in which appellant Hilton claims an interest. It is the eastern half of the street and extends from Winnebago southwardly to Chippewa street. The plat shows City Block 1619 as Elbreder’s Estate Subdivision; the plat shows City Block 1622 as Betts’ Subdivision. Virginia avenue bounds City Block 1619 on the west and Michigan avenue bounds City Block 1622 on the east. Both blocks are subdivided in the same manner. Each block has a frontage of 270 feet on the south line of Winnebago street and 270 feet on the north line of Chippewa street. Block 1622 has a frontage of 600 feet on the west line of Michigan avenue, and Block 1619 has a frontage of 600 feet on Virginia avenue. There are twelve lots in each block fronting on Compton avenue between the alley south of Winnebago street and the alley north of Chippewa street. The lots in City Block 1619 extend from the west line of the property in which the appellant Hilton claims an interest westwardly for a distince of 125 feet to an alley. The lots in City Block 1622 front upon the [265]*265east line of the strip of land, in which the heirs of William Betts claim an interest, and extend eástwardly for a distance of 125 feet to an alley. These twenty-four lots, twelve in City Block 1619 and twelve in City Block 1622, have no outlet except over the two strips of land in which Hilton and Betts claim an interest. In City Block 1619 the twelve lots fronting on this strip of land claimed by Hilton are owned by eleven separate and distinct proprietors, and if the •contention of the appellant be .true, that the land shown on the plat in the name of Anna M. Hilton is not a street, and that the alley in the rear shown in the name of the heirs of Elbreder is not an alley, the present owners of this property have no possible method of getting to their property except over the property of others.
“In the year 1849 the east half of the southwest quarter of Block 69 of the Commons of the City of St. Louis was acquired by Henry Elbreder in a partition by a partition deed. This eastern half of the southwest quarter of Block 69 comprises what is shown by the plat in the appellants’ abstract, as City Block 1619 [which will be presently set out and marked ‘Exhibit A’].
“Henry Elbreder died in 1860 and at the time of his death he was still the owner of ’this property, now known as City Block 1619.

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

Related

City of Excelsior Springs v. Elms Redevelopment Corp.
18 S.W.3d 53 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)
Snider v. City of Excelsior Springs
154 F.3d 809 (Eighth Circuit, 1998)
Linda Snider v. City Of Excelsior Springs, Missouri
154 F.3d 809 (Eighth Circuit, 1998)
City of Columbia v. Baurichter
713 S.W.2d 263 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1986)
City of St. Louis v. Clegg
233 S.W. 1 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1921)
City of St. Louis v. Waterman
209 S.W. 905 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1919)
United States Nickel Co. v. Barrett
86 Misc. 337 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 S.W. 267, 256 Mo. 255, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-st-louis-v-barthel-mo-1914.