Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/City of St. Louis v. Senter Commission Co.

City of St. Louis v. Senter Commission Co.

102 S.W.2d 103, 340 Mo. 633, 1937 Mo. LEXIS 494
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedFebruary 19, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 102 S.W.2d 103 (City of St. Louis v. Senter Commission 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
City of St. Louis v. Senter Commission Co., 102 S.W.2d 103, 340 Mo. 633, 1937 Mo. LEXIS 494 (Mo. 1937).

Opinion

COLLET, J.

On November 16, 1922, the city of St. Louis instituted condemnation proceedings for the establishment, opening and widening of Market and other streets in the city of St. Louis. Commissioners were appointed to assess benefits and damages and in due time made their report. Exceptions were filed to this report by a *636 number of property owners affected. These exceptions were: overruled, judgment was entered and after unsuccessful motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment appeals were granted the exceptors to this court. Those appeals have been consolidated and are now presented as one case. All of the questions raised in this cause except one were disposed of in the case of City of St. Louis v. Senter Commission Company et al., 336 Mo. 1209, 84 S. W. (2d) 133. The sole remaining question will be stated in connection with the following outline of the facts.

The commissioners’ report divided a tract owned by the Century Electric Company into three parts describing them as items 224a, 224b and 224c. (See plat on opposite page.) Tract “a” which is approximately 459 feet long, 44 feet wide at one end and tapers to a point at the other, was taken for right-of-way. Tract “b,” the small triangular tract shown in black on the plat, was formerly in the street but was by this proceeding vacated. Tract ‘V’ contained all of tract 224 except tract “a” which was taken for right-of-way. It included tract “b.” The commissioners’ report, after describing tracts 224a, b and c, set out the damages'and benefits in the following manner:

“We ascertain (the damages) to be................ .$10,200.00
and against the (b) described parcel of land we assess..........................'.......Nothing
on account of such vacation; and against the (b) described parcel of land we assess.......... 34,330.00
the amount to which,-in our opinion, said (b) described parcel, and the respective estates and interests therein, jointly and severally, will be especially benefited by this proposed improvement, the sum and excess of which benefits over the damages ..................................... 24,130.00
the city of St. Louis shall recover against said lot or parcel assessed.”

It will be noted that the entire benefits of $34,330 are assessed against tract “b” and none are assessed against tract “c.” In the judgment the trial court changed the letter “b” as it appears at both places in the italicized portion of the assessment to “c” with the result that the assessment of benefits was made against tract “c” instead of tract “b.” The city contends that this action of the court was proper since the assessment of benefits against tract “,b”' was obviously the result of a typographical error, while appellant insists that the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded- with directions to the trial court to enter its judgment in accordance with *637 the commissioners’' report thereby assessing all the benefits against tract “b.” In its exceptions to the commissioners’’report, appellant complained that “the. benefits assessed in said paragraph 224 are excessive, arbitrary and fictitious, and that no benefits will accrue to the Century Electric Company by reason of said condemnation.” In appellant’s motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment there is no direct reference to the complaint now made that the judgment *638 did follow the commissioners’ report which it confirmed. The city contends that since this question was not called to the trial court’s attention it is not now open for consideration. Appellant says the question was properly raised in the court below by the first assignment of the motion in arrest reading as follows:

*637

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

Related

McFaull v. Collins
208 S.W.2d 142 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1948)
Webster v. Joplin Water Works Company
177 S.W.2d 447 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1944)
Fenton v. Thompson
176 S.W.2d 456 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1943)
Jackson v. Security Benefit Association
139 S.W.2d 1014 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1940)
Williams v. Pemiscot County
133 S.W.2d 417 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1939)
Melenson v. Howell
130 S.W.2d 555 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 S.W.2d 103, 340 Mo. 633, 1937 Mo. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-st-louis-v-senter-commission-co-mo-1937.