Dressel v. City of Crestwood

257 S.W.2d 236, 1953 Mo. App. LEXIS 341
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 21, 1953
Docket28643
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 257 S.W.2d 236 (Dressel v. City of Crestwood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dressel v. City of Crestwood, 257 S.W.2d 236, 1953 Mo. App. LEXIS 341 (Mo. Ct. App. 1953).

Opinion

257 S.W.2d 236 (1953)

DRESSEL et al.
v.
CITY OF CRESTWOOD.

No. 28643.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 21, 1953.

*237 Edward C. Friedewald, St. Louis, for appellants.

Detjen & Detjen, Clayton, for respondent.

ANDERSON, Judge.

This is an action in equity brought by John H. Dressel, Margaret Wuellner, Paul C. Krueger, and Charles J. Wedemeier, as plaintiffs, against the City of Crestwood, as defendant, to have declared void an extension of the city limits of said defendant city, and to enjoin the latter from exercising any municipal authority over the territory annexed. The trial was before the court, and resulted in a finding and judgment in favor of defendant. From this judgment, plaintiffs have appealed.

The petition alleged that plaintiffs were residents and property owners in the territory sought to be annexed, and that the suit was brought as a class action for the benefit of plaintiffs and other property owners in said territory. It was then alleged that on March 7, 1951, defendant City passed an ordinance providing for the submission to the voters of the City of Crestwood the proposition to extend the corporate limits of the city; that on April 3, 1951, said extension of the city limits was duly approved by the voters of said city, and that thereafter, by ordinance approved and signed by the Mayor on April 10, 1951, *238 the result of said election was declared to have been in favor of said extension, and said city limits were extended accordingly. The territory annexed was described in the petition as included within the following boundaries: "Commencing at a point where the boundary line between Bonhomme and Gravois Township intersects the north line of Highway 66; thence eastwardly along the north line of Highway 66 to the western boundary of the City of Webster Groves; thence southwardly in a straight line across Highway 66 to the intersection of the south line of Highway 66 with the southwest line of Grant Road; thence southeastwardly along the southwest line of Grant Road to the northwest line of Pardee Road; thence southwestwardly, southwardly, and southwestwardly along the most northern and western line of Pardee Road to its intersection with the north line of Eddie and Park Road; thence west along the most northern line of Eddie and Park Road to the boundary line between Bonhomme and Gravois Townships; thence northwestwardly along the said boundary between Bonhomme and Gravois Townships to the place of beginning." It was then alleged that the territory annexed contained approximately 1,100 acres of land, and that the real estate owned by plaintiffs and others was thereby included within the limits of defendant City, and plaintiffs became residents thereof and subject to taxation by said City.

It was further alleged that the City of Crestwood had had no growth in population to necessitate an extension of its boundaries; that a great part of the annexed territory is used for dairying, farming and gardening purposes; that very little thereof is platted or being offered for sale as town lots, or divided into lots for city purposes, and that none of the land annexed is being held for the purpose of platting same as town property. The petition further alleged that except for the property facing on Highway 66 and Grant Road, and for a distance of about 1,500 feet on Sappington Road, which extends south from Highway 66, there is no water, gas facilities, or transportation facilities for the annexed area; that none of the real estate therein furnishes an abode for a densely settled community, or represents the actual growth of said city beyond its boundaries; that none of said real estate is needed by the city for any proper purpose; that it is not valuable by reason of adaptability for prospective town use, that it has no city advantages, and not necessary to foster the growth and prosperity of the City of Crestwood; that the value of the land in said annexed territory is based largely upon its value for dairying, farming and gardening purposes, or the erection of homes for people who desire to live in the country; that the population of said area is made up of people who moved there to avoid burdensome taxes, and to raise vegetable and farm products; that said area is in close proximity to the community of Sappington where there are schools, churches and stores which serve the needs of the residents of said annexed area, and the inhabitants of said annexed area have no community of interest with the City of Crestwood.

In said petition it is further alleged that the territory annexed is sparsely settled; that the value of the land therein has been diminished by said annexation; that the City of Crestwood has no public utilities, and that water, electric or gas facilities are being provided by private corporations, and that the residents of the annexed area would acquire no benefits in the supply or use of these facilities by being annexed to said city.

It was further alleged that within the City of Crestwood there is no manufacturing, no stores or commercial business, no parks or playgrounds, no sewer system or fire department, and no police department except a City Marshal; that the city has not experienced the growth and development of the usual city; that it has not progressed within the last ten years beyond its original 56.6 acres; that the inhabitants of the annexed area receive no benefits in insurance rates or any special value from the adaptability of the area for city uses, and that the City of Crestwood, being unable to support its city requirements before the annexation, is unable to furnish said annexed area any benefits.

*239 It was further alleged that the annexation was a fraud upon plaintiffs and others in that it was accomplished for the sole purpose of obtaining revenue by subjecting the property of the residents of said area to license fees and taxation without their deriving any benefits therefrom; and that the ordinance of extension was unconscionable, oppressive and unjust, a fraud upon property owners and against their interests, in that it extended the city limits to the inner side of Grant, Pardee, and Eddie and Park Roads, but assumed no obligation to maintain said roads, with the result that the property owners on said roads will be faced with the obligation of paying additional assessments for the repair and maintenance thereof, and St. Louis County will be compelled to help pay for said repair and maintenance, while the City of Crestwood will use the revenue obtained from the annexed area to repair and maintain roads and pay for other municipal obligations outside of the annexed area.

It was further alleged that the zoning laws of the City of Crestwood were inadequate and totally inapplicable to the territory annexed, and that the zoning problem in said area was adequately provided for by the zoning commission created under Article 6, Chapter 64, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.

The prayer of the petition was that the ordinance in question be held void, and that defendant be enjoined from putting said ordinance into effect, and from levying, assessing or collecting municipal taxes thereunder, or from exercising any municipal authority over said annexed territory or the residents thereof.

The answer of defendant admitted its incorporation as a village in 1947 with a population of 659 persons, admitted the passage of the ordinance, and that said city would exercise general municipal authority over the annexed area. There then followed a general denial of all other allegations of plaintiffs' petition.

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

Related

Arthur Dukes v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009
City of Peculiar v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
259 S.W.3d 597 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)
Oak Grove Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. City of Hattiesburg
588 So. 2d 814 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1991)
Matter of Enlargement of Corp. Limits
588 So. 2d 814 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1991)
Mayor of Liberty v. Beard
613 S.W.2d 642 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1981)
Binger v. City of Independence
588 S.W.2d 481 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1979)
City of O'Fallon v. Bethman
569 S.W.2d 295 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)
City of Perryville v. Brewer
557 S.W.2d 457 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1977)
City of Cameron v. Stafford
466 S.W.2d 115 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1971)
City of Bourbon v. Miller
420 S.W.2d 296 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1967)
City of Ash Grove v. Davis
418 S.W.2d 194 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1967)
City of Cape Girardeau v. Armstrong
417 S.W.2d 661 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1967)
City of Olivette v. Graeler
369 S.W.2d 85 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1963)
City of St. Ann v. Buschard
356 S.W.2d 567 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1962)
City of Aurora v. Empire District Electric Company
354 S.W.2d 45 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1962)
City of Woodson Terrace v. Herklotz
349 S.W.2d 446 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1961)
City of Lexington v. Shepard
344 S.W.2d 308 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1961)
City of Houston v. Duff
338 S.W.2d 373 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1960)
City of Fulton v. Dawson
325 S.W.2d 505 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1959)
City of Creve Coeur v. Patterson
313 S.W.2d 739 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
257 S.W.2d 236, 1953 Mo. App. LEXIS 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dressel-v-city-of-crestwood-moctapp-1953.