*1 205 MISSOURI APPEAL REPORTS, City Clayton. Stoltman v.
of the circuit and the accordingly court is affirmed cause remanded with directions as recommended Com- JJ., missioner. Reynolds, J., Becker, P. Allen and concur. BERNARD H. STOLTMAN, Respondent, THE CITY CLAYTON,
OF Appellant. Appeals. Opinion St. Court Filed December Louis 1920. Extending 1. MUNICIPAL Limits: Ordin- CORPORATIONS: May Questioned by ance: Reasonableness: Owner of Territory: object Equity: Injunctions. in Annexed Where the sought corporation against municipal to be a obtained suit a does strike at the life existence of the defendant a not municipal corporation, the reasonableness of but at its legislative extending boundary lines, equity act in its a bill proper procedure by having ais method one interest legislative extending in such such limits. action Presumptions: 2. -: -: -: -: Evidence: Ordi- equity nance of Extension In a Unreasonable. suit to have declared unrеasonable and an extension of the void municipal corporation corporation, of a such restrained and enjoined municipal authority levying exercising from assessing thereby territory annexed, over the taxes where the only very portion that evidence shows small lots; appears land had been into that the area involved acquired greater proximity to its have value on account of its corporation, adaptability nor on such account to town use, country adaptability homes, on account agricultural population purely either that the therein was or the etc., city, outgroweth of another was held unreasonable all the annexed control presumption burdens, the ordinance of' extension testimony was reasonable overcome in the case. -: -: -: Ordinance of 3. Extension Unreasonable: equity seeking In Decree. a suit in have declared unreason- municipal corpora- limits of able and void extension enjoined corporation exercising have such from tion muni- territory, cipal over the annexed a decree “forever” enjoining municipal corporation its limits erroneous, over tlie described held defendant, the decree and all should be its officers persons through enjoined operating forever them under *2 putting into force and the ordinance effect city, exercising, limits of defendant’s and from and under ordinance, function, any municipal virtue of said including levying assessing taxes, over lands sought the inhabitants of the to be annexed said ordinance.
Apрeal County.— from the Circuit Court of St. Louis Wurdeman,' Judge.
Eon. G. A.
(with directions).
Reversed
remanded
appellant.
G.
G.
A. E. L.
Gardner
Wolf
(1)
plaintiff
injunction
test
cannot sue
right
a
of the
limits;
fourth class to extend its
contiguous territory
so
take
be assailed
must
directly by
quo
other direct
warranto,
State
collaterally
proceeding by the
and cannot be
State,
case,
folloAving
citing
cases,
this
attacked as
Kayser
88;
16 Mo.
Trustees of
State
Avit:
v.
Bremen,
City
App. 32;
rel. Mineral
ex
v.
Land
84 Mo.
Co.,
Young,
App.
Romey
In-
160;
ex rel.
142
Salem
Mo.
v.
Flynn
v.
84
Fox,
65;
FredericktoAvn
Mo.
habitants of
City
ex
Neosho,
573;
114
State
v. The
Mo.
rel.'v.
Stegmiller,
City
151
221;
Mo.
v.
Birch,
186
Kansas
(2)
Hodgin, Mo.
Under
Mo.
Dist.
180
70.
209; School
v.
provisions
of section
Revised Statutes
Mayor
of Aldermen of
Board
majority
legal
of a
with the consent
class,
fourth
city, voting
have'
therefor,
at an election
of such
voters
city power
of such
the limits
extend
judgment
adjacent
in their
and discretion-
Avhen
thereto,
city.
to the benefit of the
redound
extension
such
rel.
Copeland
432;
126 Mo.
State ex
v.
Joseph,
St.V.
City,
Kansas
233
State ex
v.
205;
inf.
186 Mo.
Birch,
Joplin,
opHi si
Mo.
ex rel.
599;
250
State
v.
213;
Mo.
xe
-a
S93
‘061 ‘OH
SapiM
XouoH
oppg
(cid:127)a
-pi
APPEAL REPORTS,
205 MISSOURI
y. City
City
Laslily
Young,
App.
v.
160;
rel.
Mo.
ex
State
(3)
Maplewood,
mere fact
989.
193 S. W.
agri-
is used
the land taken
such extension
purposes
make
all
does not
is not
cultural
Copeland
City
St.
v.
unreasonable.
extension
Fleming,
Joseph,
inf.
158 Mo.
ex
v.
432;
Mo.
State
supra;
rel.
ex
of Salem
Birch,
rel. v.
558; State ex
(4)
question
App.
bene-
Young,
Mo.
v.
legislative
ais
of the extension
fits
passage
judicial
one,
prima-facie
of reasonableness.
case
makes
extension
Pryor
App.
v. Construc-
537;
73 Mo.
Zeisler,
v.
Parker
v. Weber,
Louis
451;
St.
170 Mo.
tion Co.,
Copeland v.
Westport,
502;
110 Mo.
550; Morse
Mo.
City,
Kansas
ex inf. v.
Joseph,
431; State
Mo.
St.
Dillon
Joplin,
250 Mo.
Hislop v.
*3
214;
233 Mo.
649.
Corporations, section
Municial
respondent.
Bakewell, Jr.,
Paul
for
(1)
equitáble
An
action will
lie
the instant case
for an avoidance of the
injunction,
ordinance and an
precedents
and there are
for
its' use
similar cases.
Hislop
Joplin,
v.
Copeland
250 Mo. 588;
Joseph,
v. St.
126
417;
Mo.
Parker
(Collector),
v. Zeisler
App.
73 Mo.
(2)
537.
The resistance to taxation
made
owners
of property
municipality,
included in a
ground
on the
the ordinance of extension and,
unreasonable,
therefore, void, does not constitute a collateral attack
corporate entity,
proper
procedure.
and is State
rel.
ex
v.
186
Birch,
Mo. 205, 220; State
rel.
ex
v.
Mining
Plattsburg
Cо., Mo.
Riley,
504;
262
490,
v.
42
App.
Mo.
Paving
18; Warren v. Barber
Co., 115 Mo.
(3) Injunction
572.
will lie to restrain the enforcement
of an invalid
prevent
ordinance in order to
a mul-
tiplicity of suits. Coal Co. v.
Louis,
St.
130 Mo.
329.
323,
(4)
brought
Suits
any taxpayer, for himself
similarly
prevent
others,
the collection
situated,
illegal
Ranney
an
tax.
Rader,
v.
Kansas, The reasonableness Mo. judicial extending city limits is a inquiry. Mining 505; ex Mo. Salem Co., rel. State v. Young, App. rel. 170; State ex ex v. Mo. rel. Plains, 219; v. rel. West Birch, State ex v. Clayton, Mo. App. (6) and not its Mo. 171. proper ex individual State defendant. officers, Fleming, (7) inf. avoid 158 Mo. Courts will v. 568. municipal corporation incorporation it en- of a where large land tracts of closes, within the limits of the town, agricultural purposes. exclusively ex devoted State McReynolds, inf. Bell- 203; rel. ex Mo. State v. App-. rel. v. Small, 129 Mo. ex flower, State reasonably (8) App. city may its extend Mo. A contiguous property when: First. take platted They sale or as town lots. are and held for use they held to Second. Whether or if are not, brought town on the sold market and as. corresponding they reach a with the views when value they for Third. the owner. When furnish abode of a growth community, represent densely the actual settled beyond legal boundary. Fourth. town proper purpose, they for needed When sys- gas or water sewer, the extension of its streets, supply places business of for the abode or tem, or police reg- for the extension of needed residents, or Fifth. reason When valuable ulation, prospective adaptability but the town uses; ther by reason of their that their vаlue enhanced fact mere *4 give ground corporation for- would not nearness appear it did not that such value if annexation, their adaptability of their to town on account enhanced was Hislop City, 213; Mo. inf. v. ex Kansas use. State Copeland Joseph Joplin, v. St. Mo. 599; 250 Mo. City not be to .take (9) limits so extended should 432. they only contiguous are used First. When land: in and horticulture agricuture or valuable purposes of When are vacant use. Second. of such on account adaptability- their City, value from derive and do 214; Kansas Mo. inf. v. ex city uses. State REPORTS, 205 MISSOURI APPEAL y. City of Municipal Corporations, p. section McQuillin, equity BARNES, in filed on the C. This suit was day July, 25th of in the of Louis St. Circuit Court County, Missouri. Plaintiff seeks to un- have declared reasonable and an void extension of the of limits September, consummated on the 12th of enjoined exercising and defendant and restrained municipal authority assessing levying and taxes over territory thereby the thereof. annexed, the’residents plaintiff’s alleged: petition
In it is the defend- that plaintiff ant is a class; of the fourth that owns dwelling some acres of ten land which he a erected in which he and that his house, resides, ten acre tract city’s in area included within extension-of the City Clay- limits; that of of the Boai’d Aldermen passed change corpo- ton an ordinance extend ’ city, approved by rate limits of the Mayor, submitted voters approv- election thereon; an that held ed result of Mayor, the election said was ordained declared be in favor such extension, and ex- the limits said in tended accordance therewith; that said his extension real estate is now included city, plaintiff within the limits has now said city. become resident said grounds upon petition which the ordi- av.ers unreasonable, nance are: said ordinance undertook to extend the limits of Clayton, westwardly, strip approximately one and one-fourth miles east and west covering north and of a like south, width some ten twenty-five acres; had been no hundred that there growth population in the or increase sufficient any proper necessitate extension for purposes; and had avers, there been no substantial except population city, an increase said increase previous population occasioned extension area eastwardly, year made plaintiff, included land of such extension, *5 plaintiff’s used a portion as site for thereof residence, is under in- cultivation, is distant from and that part city; practically habited that the entire said kept land included within of said the limits extension farming gardening purposes, and used and none for ground been or for has town held sale as purposes, or divided into for lots said none lots, brought real estate is market said held to and sold town' when reaches value cor- responding none owners; with the that views densely said reál estate an abode for settled furnishes represents growth community, town or the actual legal boundary; beyond its that none of the former any proper purpose, as real estate is for needed system, gas extension of its or or sewers, streets water supply space of its for abode or resi- or business police regulation; dents, or for the extension of needed real is valuable reason that none of said estate prospective adaptability» and that uses, town for farming possesses for value his real estate whatever country purposes, purpose gardening or for country desiring live in the with- those residences for proximity Louis; in close of St. being taken been increased the land not
value of has contrary but on into the thereby; nor land diminished neither has been police protection, residing; nor need the thereon those received land or residents thereof either the has protection into the limits of the taken police since .any- city, other benefits received said have nor in the area city government; that none of lands extensiqm property, can used covered purpose, value has and it for that no demanded nor adaptation business: residences based the annexed not has reached settlement annexed terri- distant; and that the is far hut territory, is no uses; and there laid out tory not contrary the terri- upon-it, on the settlement forty more than houses on sparsely settled, tory is twenty-five acres. hundred ten REPORTS, APPEAL MISSOURI ' Clayton. *6 City of Stoltman v. city Clayton alleges; petition that further the municipal light plant, that the water or water,
has no light gas are furnished to the inhabitants of the long by private corporations, for a which time fully prepared equipped supply have been the territory products, and annexed supplied with their had fact supplying
and are the still residents of territory products. require the their That annexed territory by only through thе one annexed traversed running by through road south, road running north and one bounding west;
east and and that roads territory annexed west south excluded city by from the limits said ordinance; larger by reason amount terri- whereof, the of annexed tory adjoining municipal subject the said while roads, deprived taxes, would the benefit streets; said plaintiff’s Clay- land fronts on the north line of the boundary ton Road, line the southern lights, police extended; no street sewers, protection or have conveniences been furnished in territory, by the annexed done, work Clayton upon territory; the two roads in the .annexed and that effect of annexation is a fraud to work rights plaintiff pur- others; and that the sole pose subject annexing was to the real es- tate and the residents of said annexed possible рlain- and that taxation, no benefit can enure to similarly tiff or others situated. petition charges, further that for' the reasons alleged,
therein limits of city Clayton westwardly oppressive, is unconscionable, unjust, unreasonable and and its effect is to work a fraud upon the residents the district; that .said ordinance of against extension majority the wishes of of property against owners the district included, their interests, and’that the result of said ordinance will be to impose upon plaintiff, said and all other residents of the territory, municipal the burden of taxes with- deriving any their out by benefit therefrom; reason of said personal extension the land and of territory, plaintiff, and other residents snch annexed of. levying of taxes has assessment and become every purpose the defendant such and plaintiff which the and his are in nowise benefited. land petition February, that in avers, further prior passage of the ordinance of extension com- plained aof, bond issue was authorized the voters of County, St. Louis sections 10520 Revised under proceeds Statutes of which Mo., bonds were improvement to be used for the construction and county at roads; that time the roads the terri- tory complained *7 annexed of, the ordinance were sub- ject improvement, construction and out maintenance, proceeds issue, of said bond without additional cost special charges against plaintiff property or the or other territory, in holders the annexed all of which would be plaintiff similarly of substantial benefit to and others territory that situated; inclusion of annexed cоrporate city within the limits of the territory roads in said city have streets, become and that proceeds under the law of this State, the of said is- bond improve, sue cannot be used to construct or maintain improve, and in streets, that' order to construct main- tain the which roads, said annexation have become plaintiff’s property streets, and other real estate subject territory special the annexed will taxation; plaintiff that reason extension and others simi- larly deprived situated and effected, are substan- rights tial and benefits would had accrue to them corporate plaintiff been and extended, subject will others become to the burden of improvement, assessments for construction taxes said and maintenance of streets. further that states,
Plaintiff reason this resi- in the dence included limits of property personal his to license fees and charges with, city; in accordance the ordinances of said and that demanding, officers of said demanded, and are now municipal payment imposed aof fee license residing city, owners of vehicles have REPORTS, MISSOURI APPEAL threatening, prosecution failure threatened pay fee. license said plaintiff in- alleges, petition that further alleges duly be, fact to and believes formed assessed, and levied and have the officers of said levy municipal threatening his and taxes on and assess territory, and are at- annexed all other real estate tempting levy and collection; that said to enforce their plaintiff’s fur- title; a cloud constitutes assessment Clayton are аt- of the said the officers ther, municipal authority tempting further acts of to exercise thereof; inhabitants and the said annexed imposition premises or collection considered, exercise of other or'taxes, of license fees is unauthorized over the annexed foundation law. without alleges threatened that the acts and
Plaintiff further only all other himself, affect not acts defendant territory, in the owners residents brings of himself and he this suit on behalf and that similarly payers, residents or tax interested such other join therein; further, Or care to affected, wrongs, complained wrongs will of, similar adequate plaintiff remedy no at continuous, and that has necessary *8 equity in order that resort to law, and prevent multiplicity order to remove suits, of plaintiff’s property. cloud thе title to cast petition prayer asks that the ordinance of void,-and be declared of no effect, and that the defendant and its officersbe restrained and assessing levying municipal enjoined from or taxes against within the land residents collecting and from ordinance; the terms attempting charges, to collect fees or license from exercising over or functions the ter- ritory within included limits of the said city Clayton, by the terms of ordinance, the residents and for such other relief as thereof, might proper. court deem
By in- that was admitted defendant answer, municipality corporated the fourth class; as a by plaintiff; alleged of the ordinance as enactment plaintiff’s in- estate is of the real extension, result and that cluded within the limits plaintiff’s together personal рrop- his real with estate, erty, levy taxes, has become assessment city, municipal purposes. defendant alleged answering, Further defendant it had corporate power been in the exercise of over the plaintiff’s including annexed, said real estate, since the passage approval said ordinance. Defendant allegations except petition, then denied the in the those specifically plaintiff. De-; admitted. The decree was for appealed. fendant county is the seat of St. Louis
County. history From we it was laid learn out Hanley on a tract four acres donated Mrs. for the public buildings; Ralph Clayton, and it was named after who donated 100 acres land. appears Clayton
From the evidence it contained incorporation some 400 at acres the time of its as a temple justice class. The high fourth was on a point, and about a block half the western boundary city. line of The south end of the western boundary line is marked' the North and South road. approaching In the business district of the from the along necessary south, and South North road, turn running east one block, to the street on west side of the court house. The area west of the courthouse fronting practically up this street is built with busi- ness houses. The remainder of the town seems amply provided with business houses, and the residence up compactness. district built with reasonable population runs between 1000 at rate some years prior ten the institution this suit there was a population neighborhood boom which increased original *9 of '500,since which time as to thе town it has re- practically stationary. Clayton In mained extended App. —37 APPEAL REPORTS, 205 MISSOURI y.. City territory, on in 1000 acres take east, so as to n whichthere population esti- houses, was about Clayton and 200. In 1916 mated between .boundary again lines. This time extend to' undertook westerly of about one and a in a direction for distance quarter, quarter having a of a mile and a width miles, twenty- approximately ten so-as include hundred against which five and it this latter extension acres, is is this suit is directed. The last extension bounded on Clayton .by the south the north line -Road, line In the west of the Price Road. east area are a few of houses, this extension there which are “shacks,” remainder, however, termed far greater portion, being many and in in- comfortable, stances handsome and commodious homes. Clаyton
The Ladue runs from the Road across sought annexed, Road, Price cutting of the about a north end third of the off area. unopened Running north and south across area is the platted Gray Avenue, which cuts off the eastern approximately midway end a third of area; be- Gray McKnight tween Avenue the Price Road running Gay Road, south. north and Between Avenue and the western limits of as extended in comprising is a tract land known as the Davis tract, pasture about 500 acres, which is and corn. Immediate- ly acres, the Davis tract tracts west of of 40.09 hay; in corn acres cultivated; 100.5 of 32.23 hay. clover; acres, and 111.71 acres, Between some McKnight and the these Road are tracts five other varying in acres, more, tracts from to5 10-acres or 4 country gardening them used as homes, truck agriculture; platted the 5th tract was as West opened, none of streets, have been however, and Clayton general gar- tract West utilized dening. size .Such and uses of the various tracts lying McKnight between the road and the western line as extended in 1913.
The remainder area, that is, between the -Mc Knight and Price roads, are tracts: of 34r.5acres, in corn *10 Clayton.
Stoltman v. maple grove; 39.15 acres, as a tomatoes; acres, garden 24.59 .cultivated; a truck vacant; acres, previously rye; tracts acres, in corn and other contain approxi acres; 30.13 17.30 16.35 acres; acres; several, mately acres the remainder three five each, and exception tracts, areas, acre with the two small one platted as Boschert’s divided 100- Addition, into upon eight foot lots, and which there are seven or resi Clayton Heights, ; dences the other, about one mile south of Boschort’s Addition, the lots of which are actually opened, divided into nor lots, roads Clayton Heights contrary by was unheard of some represented plat witnesses and by the land Practically cultivated. all of the residences occupied by their owners are the residences St. Louis gardners. or the men, residences of truck business The estimated value of this entire area varies from per average perhaps being acre, $300 its $400 $1500 per greatly at acre, rate value is its in excess of its agricultural production ordinary value as lands for agricultural products. appears The value these lands by to have at all been arrived the witnesses on account of availаbility country proximity homes, for and its city although of St. Louis, few witnesses ascribe some additional value the Davis tract because of its ad- city Clayton. joining the said Clayton public has no sewers, but such sewerage through
itsof as is private carried in.mains sewer nor mains, does the have a mu- nicipal light, plant, gas heat, water or but relies public and is served utilities outside of said portion major these conveniences. of the annexed public light, served the same area is that is, utilities, telephone. gas water, also laundry, enjoys paper carrier, butcher, baker kindred facilities from services and St. Louis, not from Clayton. agreed parties:
It was counsel first, that through corporation, agents, the defendant officersand against per- levied and assessed taxes has real APPEAL REPORTS, MISSOURI the limits of within included sonal complained of; Clayton,,by of the extension corporation officers and its the defendant second, continuing and are to exercise have exercised plat authority; map from which we that the and’ third, with- tracts the area of various have heretofore indicated map true and correct was the annexed, originally plat as it existed two ex- the extension and extension *11 respectively, in and tensions indicated black red ink original city in the black. plat stipulated might map
It is further that the and in trial, be introduced and used as evidence the and that levy the and other and assessment of license fees taxes, authority territory effected, the acts of over stipulation stipulation, by that the are admtted proof evidence, as and no other be used of itself proper- municiual of exercise or acts necessary. ty shall involved passage and the ordinance rati- the ordinance of irregularity is, no fying admitted, were the election reference thereto. with claimed is actuating many of residents The motive e'scape locate therein towas congested incident lights, dirt and traffic smoke, noise, city and their themselves families and to surround life, quiet, a freedom incident to rural comfort with the grow enjoy ground plot size, of some their a of life; keep vegetables fruits, cows, ducks, chickens own annoyance, pigeons, of serious if which would be ' city. in the nuisance, city Clayton the north is bordered on University City, St. Louis, on the east Heights. partially by Richmond on south Clayton incorpo- originally Immediatеly south manufacturing distant, one mile and about rated, intervening- Evans & Howard. The establishment any city; ground not within the limits exception bordering on the North with City of country Clayton for not desirable roads is South residences. Clayton to
The motives which actuated mayor by its is set forth undertake the western extension system necessity, sewer the construction land, Davis to have on the two draws brought could not until be obtained condemnation a- within boundaries; and because the University might fraid that to extend its undertake boundary along lines south west thereby possibility cutting all west- off ward.
A creek which cuts the Davis land, across cuts Clayton Clay- across the Road about 1000 west' feet ton, as extended in also cuts across the North and South contended draws Road, pro- necessary the Davis tract are neverthelеss posed system Clay- sewer to be installed plans system ton. The the sewer are not evi- dence. The draws the Davis tract all east of-the unopened Cay Avenue. public hy- installed has two
drants in the annexed and let area, contracts for some lights McKnight 36 or 40 on the The and Ledue roads. spent Street Commissioner also testified about he McKnight on the and Ledue roads. of $1000 On behalf plaintiff McKnight spent it shown was what was on the by road obtained and there is contribution, expended showing no the source of the funds expended major portion being road, the Ledue apparently gravel, insti-. oil and this suit was after tuted. mayor for not testified that the reason further Clayton
including and the Price exten- in roads expense up-keep. their evade of sion was Clayton do attend children оf this area attend the miles distant, is some two School, which the extension of and while School, Central change Clayton, did not void, valid whether of the children district, boundary of school lines 582 205 MISSOURI APPEAL REPORTS, City attending pay required Central School have been per tuition of a dollar month.
"With reference to the effect of the extension of practically involved, all of plaintiff the witnesses for testified that tended property, reduce the value bringing of their because within the thereby limits of subjecting it to that municipal government.. aWhile few witnesses testified prox- there was some in increase value, due to the imity greater by weight the lands of far the testimony shows that the value of the lands involved, area insofar exceed the normal agricultural purely purposes, value for is due to the рroximity of the lands to the St. rather Louis "city Clayton, than adaptability for coun- try homes.
Appellant corpo- contends that an action to test the rate only by of a be can instituted by procedure quo State in the nature of warranto, plaintiff that the case cannot maintain this suit. this this authorities State seem to be, that municipality validity existence aof or the charter inquired only into can the State action itself, proceed quo or other the nature warranto direct [Kayser ings. 88, 90; v. Trustees 16 Mo. Bremen, App. Parker Zeisler, 537, 541; 73 Mo. v. The Inhabit 59, ants Fredericktown 84 v. Mo. 65; Fox, v. 62 247; St. Louis Mo. Shields, District School No. Hodgin, 79, Mo. 148; S. W. v. Young, App. v. Salem ex rel. Mo. 160, 170, S. validity That extension of 857.] W. inquired
boundary
into
lines
the State
an
,.or
quo
pro
action in the nature of
warranto
other direct
ceeding.
[Statе
rel. v. Mineral Land
Co.,
ex
Mo.
Lashly City Maplewood,
inf.
App.
ex
State
*13
(Mo.
Hogan
App.)
City
ex
989;
rel.
State
193 S. W.
v.
App. 166,
163;
Mo.
147 S.
Plains, 163
W.
of West
State
City,
Atty.
233 Mo.
v. Kansas
162, 134
inf.
Gen’l.
ex
City
Stegmiller,
v.
151 Mo.
3007;
189,
Kansas
S. W.
ex rel. White v.
State
131
723;
Small,
W.
52 S.
209,
583
TERM, 1920.
City of
App.
ex
Mo.
109
470, 480,
1079.]
W.
And
S.
corporation
municipal
boundary
tension
lines of a
original
incor
dignity
act of
not rise to
of an
does
poration.
205, 220,
[See
Birch, 186 Mo.
State ex rel. v.
Paving’
Asphalt
It present sought suit does not strike attained to be as a of the defendant life existence at the corporation, but at the reasonableness boundary legislative lines, its. act procedure one proper method equity a bill in legislative action ex- such having a interest proper and that tending limits, day give plaintiff judge in court and his learned trial bill. his to entertain or unreason- reasonableness reference
With opin-' we, likewise, ordinance, ableness judge. trial learned ion reached approval of our received which has The test Kansas City, in State ex inf. v. Supreme stated, Court “1. That 134 S. W. be: 162, 233 Mo. *14 584 205 MISSOURI APPEAL REPORTS, Clayton. v. properly reasonably be extend- contiguous ed so (1) as to they take when are lands platted (2) for held sale or use as town lots, platted they brought whether or if not, are held they market and sold .as town when reach a corresponding value own- the views with (3) densely they ers, when furnish the for a abode community, represent growth settled or the actual beyond they legal boundary, (4) the town when are any proper purpose, needed for town for exten- as gas system, sion of its sewer, or or streets water or to places supply residents; or of its for business abode police regulation; for the extension of needed (5) adapta- they when are valuable reason their prospective bility uses; town but the mere fact that their value is enhanced reason of their nearness corporation give ground would not for their annexa- appear tion, if not did was enhanced such value ’’ adaptability on account of their to town use. further, ... limits shall not'be so “ contiguous (1) they as lands, extended to take when purpose agriculture only for are used or horti- (2) and are on account of such culture, use; valuable when vacant and do not derive value iare adaptability [State uses.” their ex inf. City, 162, 213, 1007.] 233 Mo. S. W. v. Kansas Joplin, Hislop [See also, Mo. S. Copeland Joseph, Mo. 625; v. St. 417, W. S. App. W. Parker v. Zeisler, 537.] 73 Mo. Applying the elements of the test to the ordinance, respective appears in their оrder, Boschert’s Heights, ap- West Addition, proximately or more mile distant from the separated by opproxi- and are from each other mately quarter intervening of mile. The lands be- pieces platted territory these three tween are culti- intervening area vated, well between them and Clayton. appear platted them None .into lots. testimony shows Boschert’s Addition there strips ground having fifty or 8 houses on are 7 foot frontage; pieces platted two other subjected general agricultural either cultivation general gardening. thus area total extent relatively be deter- so small that it should there minative of the vast involved, area nor *15 Clay- Clayton testimony either whatsoever that West Heights being ton either lots, town are held for sale as independent Clayton. city of of or in with the connection suggestion no is the record that
There in of brought territory sought the to be held to annexed is it property town when on market and sold as the corresponding the with views re- reaches a value the of replete contrary, spective is owners, the the record and is with that the is evidence held adapted country for best homes. testimony further area is not that the a shows represent
densely community, not the settled and does beyond Clayton legal city growth its of actual boundary. the of popu- appears' contrary it that the theOn agricultural purely or the out- is lation thereon either growth of St. Louis. of of for to the need the area
Now, with reference regulation. may purposes proper police It town advantage in are tract of that the the JDavis said draws can well be utilized said of system; development proposed of its sewer taking not it in treble the amount does warrant tract in which the the Davis involved located. are draws police regulations, to the
And with reference appears sufficiently that the character from record as well as their scattered inhabitants abodes, (cid:127) public, open not places all does absence of the appear regu- slightest police for demand to create proof municipality; clear that by lation peace nothing or welfare inimicable there supervision. requires police its major portion By area involved far acquired greater to have its appears evidence proximity on account not value, REPORTS, MISSOURI APPEAL Clayton. Clayton; adaptability nor on use, account of its to town but on adaptability account country of its for homes. contiguous Clayton While the lands for favorable agricultural purposes, and horticultural are now so greater used, nevertheless the value is because adaptability country may homes. value attach Some unopened Gray to such east of lands Avenue, adapta- derive their some value from bility Clay- uses connection with the appears but even ton, so, unreasonable undertake present appears to annex area when no vast need visionary therefor, needs too remote. While greater Clayton highly the vision commendable, closely too and the courts will scrutinize efforts of expansion; city might fear another reasonable partakes involved, here to annex more seek growth than that the rival’s vision proportion apprehend just sought as land We *16 adjacent popula- is several centers of to be annexed legislative by any vision as to annexation the its tion, municipalities hedged by which it is of the about is popu- or restricted or the source of the shortened flow of important. more lation becomes opinion placing are the We further of the boundary the area far lines of annexed west as the Clayton far Price road and south as the road, without taking proposed corporate those roads into the is limits, importance grave of matter two and a half miles territory fronting importance thereon. The оf which inclusion or exclusion would ability increase as ones improved fifty fronting visualize foot lots on said roads, they dispenses where touch area the involved. It with municipal government all over the roads, and is neces- territory sarily abutting detrimental to the thereon and vicinity in the thereof. testimony
The further discloses that the value of ^territory sought the in the area to be annexed will be greatly by reduced within the included opinion it unreason- municipal that was the are therefore We territory annexed all able presumption the ordi- burdens, control overcome has been reasonable extension nance of testimony in the case. The Appellant objects of the decree. form enjoins objection that the decree basis forever westwardly extending limits from por- territory ordinance. in the described over point pertinent to this reads: tion the decree “ adjudged and decreed ordered, Wherefore person any or defendant, its officers that said court through persons operating them or under be or assessing levying enjoined hereby from forever against the land or residents within taxes an ordinance extend- the terms of County, ing St. Louis the limits of Sep- day westwardly, 12th as enacted Missouri, adjudged and>de- ordered, 1916. It is further tember, hereby that said defendant the Court creed any municipal enjoined exercising au- from is forever thority included within the or function over Clayton by the terms the said of the residents ordinance, aforesaid ’ ’ thereof. susceptible decree to such construction. decree defendant, should officers persons operating through all or under and they them be. .and enjoined hereby putting force forever and effect limits of the de- Clayton, westwardly, fendant as enacted on the *17 day September, exercising 12th and from under any virtue said ordinance, including levying assessing or function, of taxes, over the lands sought inhabitants of the to be annexed said ordinance.
In view of foregoing the above and the Commissioner recommends that the decree be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the court enter trial REPORTS, APPEAL MISSOURI Stone Co. Bank Central
Allen Co. State in the defendant, against favor of plaintiff, decree indicated above. form opinion foregoing
PER CURIAM: The Barnes, decree of C., adopted opinion court. re the cause reversed accordingly the trial court conformity decree manded with to enter a directions Becker, Allen J., opinion. Reynolds, P. with said JJ., concur.
ALLEN STATE v. CEN BANK, Appellant, COUNTY
TRAL Respondent. COMPANY, STONE Appeals, Kansas Court November Separate Contemporaneous CORPORATE STOCK: Purchase: Notes:. manfacturing corporation Bankruptcy: Contract: A Notice. acquire (cid:127)cement and desired to and interest customers brick having- stockholders, stock, them become that end it sold $1000, defendant, paying face value of which was the latter $250, giving negotiable $250, in cash and three notes each corporation executing whereby agreed a contract furnish defendant with and brick of the of $1000. cement value corporation pay- delivered material to defendant cash ment, never delivered for the three notes and bankruptcy thrоwn into became forever disabled do so. Before becoming bankrupt, corporation,. through president, bor- money plaintiff plaintiff rowed and endorsed these notes to president loan; As endorsing collateral for the them in- dividually, corporation paying also. The defaulted in the loan president paid it, plaintiff and the turning back to him the corporations requested president notes. But the bank to keep bring against them and suit for his defendant, benefit Held; it did. plain- consideration had failed and tiff could not recover. 2. CONTEMPORANEOUSCONTRACT: Note: Endorsee: Construction. aWhen contemporaneously written contract is executed with a promissory note, concerning subject matter, the same one de- pending upon other, they together should be read and con- together strued and if an endorsee notice has he of the contract rights pay- will held to abide contract affects his ment of note.