State ex rel. Scott v. Lichte

126 S.W. 466, 226 Mo. 273, 1910 Mo. LEXIS 63
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 7, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 126 S.W. 466 (State ex rel. Scott v. Lichte) 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
State ex rel. Scott v. Lichte, 126 S.W. 466, 226 Mo. 273, 1910 Mo. LEXIS 63 (Mo. 1910).

Opinion

VALLIANT, C. J.

This is an application for a writ of prohibition to go against respondents, composing the county court of Montgomery county, to prohibit them entertaining jurisdiction of a petition filed in that court, founded on section 6004, Revised Statutes 1899, praying for the incorporation of a village to be called the town of Bellflower. The petition was signed by two-thirds of the taxable inhabitants of the area sought to be embraced within the limits of the proposed corporation and was in due form; it embraced 460 acres of land; it was filed in the county court May 8, 1908, while the court was in session, whereupon the court made an order continuing the matter until May 13th; on May 12th relator filed his petition in this court praying a writ of prohibition; this court on that day issued a preliminary rule to the justices of the county court to show cause why the writ should not issue as prayed. On October 13th, respondents filed a motion to quash the application and dismiss this suit. The court ordered that the motion be retained to be considered on the final submission of the cause on its merits, whereupon respondents filed their return, and the court appointed David H. Harris, Esquire, a commissioner to take proof on the disputed facts. The commissioner has made his report, relator has filed exceptions to same, and the cause is now before us for final disposal on the questions of law and facts.

The relator relies on three propositions to sustain his application for a writ of prohibition: first, that the area embraced in the proposed incorporation includes two separate towns and, of the 460 acres so embraced, 130 acres are lands unplatted and used only for agricultural and pastoral purposes; second, section 6004 is unconstitutional in this, that it makes no provision for notice of the proceeding in the county court and thereby deprives relator of his property without due process'of law; third, that section 6004, in connec[281]*281tion with sections 5252 to 5256 inclusive, is unconstitutional in the face of section 7, article 9, of the Constitution, which requires the General 'Assembly to enact general laws for the organization and classification of cities and towns and limits the classes to four, that having by sections 5252 to 5255 created four classes of cities it could not create a fifth class by calling it a village.

I. The facts on which relator’s first proposition is based are as follows:

For some years prior to the beginning of this controversy there existed the unincorporated platted town of Bellflower, containing originally eighty acres, but afterwards by additions made from time to time so extended as to cover 240 acres. Relator bought a tract of 190 acres lying adjacent to and south of the town. After the relator’s purchase, the O., B. & Q. railroad was'constructed, running diagonally through relator’s land from southeast to northwest, and through a. small part of the southwest corner of the town. The location of the railroad left a tract of about forty-five acres of relator’s land in the shape of a triangle.north of the track and adjoining the south line of the town. The relator then laid off and platted a town on his own land south of the railroad and called it New Bell-flower. His new town was separated from what he calls the old town by this forty-five-acre triangle, and he has since used that triangle solely for a cornfield.

The following diagram, though not mathematically accurate, will assist in understanding the situation. A very much more accurate map is on file in the case showing the plats of the two towns laid. off in lots, streets, alleys, etc., to which reference may be had if desired:

[282]*282 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

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

Related

State ex rel. Reed v. County of Stone
201 S.W.3d 543 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2006)
In Re Incorporation of Village of Table Rock
201 S.W.3d 543 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2006)
Cherry v. City of Hayti Heights
563 S.W.2d 72 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1978)
Thorpe v. King
221 N.E.2d 895 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1966)
State v. Champ
393 S.W.2d 516 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1965)
In re Incorporate the City of Duquesne
322 S.W.2d 857 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1959)
City of St. Joseph v. Hankinson
312 S.W.2d 4 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1958)
Dressel v. City of Crestwood
257 S.W.2d 236 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1953)
Algonquin Golf Club v. City of Glendale
81 S.W.2d 354 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1935)
Boise City v. Boise City Development Co.
238 P. 1006 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1925)
In re Buie
287 F. 896 (N.D. Texas, 1923)
Davis v. Stewart
171 P. 281 (Montana Supreme Court, 1918)
State ex rel. Coyne v. Buerman
172 S.W. 454 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1915)
State ex inf. Black v. Gooch
157 S.W. 846 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 S.W. 466, 226 Mo. 273, 1910 Mo. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-scott-v-lichte-mo-1910.