12 Mo. App. 494 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1882
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case presents substantially the same questions as those presented in the case of Gay v. Mutual Union Telegraph
It appears that the pole, if erected, leaves a passage-way of four feet and three inches between it and the plaintiff’s building. This building stands two feet further into the sidewalk than the adjacent buildings, though it is placed on the line of the plaintiff’s lot. It would seem that the contiguous property-owners, in order to enlarge the sidewalk, have erected their buildings two feet inside the line of the street. The plaintiff is the owner of the fee, but there is no evidence of any injury to the fee. See O'Linda v. Lothrop, 21 Pick. 292; Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. St. Louis, 66 Mo. 259. The only injury claimed is an injury to the easement — an obstruction to travel.
The evidence does not satisfy us that any substantial damages will accrue to the plaintiff from the erection of a good and shapely pole in the place and of the dimensions of this pole before it was broken. It is shown that there is more room for the erection of a pole on the opposite corner, but that furnishes no reason why we can enjoin the erection of this pole here. There may be reasons known to the board of public improvements, and not disclosed by this record,
It is not necessary to consider the effect of the clause of the constitution of this state which provides that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation (Const., Art. I., sect. 21), because we are all agreed that no damage is shown in this case within the meaning of this provision.
We are clear that this is no case for enjoining the defendants from erecting a shapely pole, such as complies with the terms of the ordinance ; though the permit granted them by the board of public improvements, under the authority conferred by the ordinance, does not warrant them in erecting a broken and unshapely pole, such as that shown in the evidence. The bill will not be dismissed, but the injunction should be modified so as to permit the defendants to erect a shapely pole Conforming to the specifications of the ordinance, of the same size as the original pole which they attempted to erect here.
Reversed and remanded.