Schneider Granite Co. v. Independent Breweries Co.
Schneider Granite Co. v. Independent Breweries Co.
Opinion of the Court
The controlling facts of this case (except as herein-below noted) are the same as those involved in the case of The Schneider Granite Company v. Gast Realty & Investment Company and Emily Gast decided by Division Two of this court at the present term and reported in 259 Missouri Reports at page 153. The present case differs from the above-mentioned case with reference to the situation discussed in paragraph III of the above opinion. At the time the ordinance was passed authorizing the work Hornsby avenue was the next parallel street west of that portion of the improved street upon which the land herein involved fronted. Before the work of the improvement was consummated said parallel portion of Hornsby avenue was vacated, and Church road was extended northward. This extension of Church road was about 150 feet farther away from the improved street than was Hornsby avenue. The district line at this place was drawn one-half way between the improved street and the parallel extension of Church road which, as above stated, was the next parallel street at the time the work was completed. This brought into the benefit district a small portion of the land involved in the present tax bill. The portion so brought in and included in the present tax bill was approximately 70 feet by 136 feet. This was approximately one-seventh of the total area involved in the present tax bill. In determining the correctness of the district line at this place it becomes necessary to determine at what time the benefit district is to be fixed. If the benefit district is to be fixed at or before the date of the passage of the ordinance authorizing the work as contended by appellant, then the above-mentioned tract was erroneously included in the benefit district, but if the district is to be fixed as of the date of the final
“If within fifteen days after such public meeting, the owners of the major part of the area of the land made taxable by this article for such improvement shall file in the office of the board of public improvements their written remonstrance against the proposed improvement or against the material or manner thereof, the board shall consider such remonstrance, and if said board shall, by a two-thirds vote at a regular meeting approve of the improvement, material or manner remonstrated against, they shall cause an or*381 dinance for the same to be prepared and report the same with the reasons for their action and the remonstrance to the assembly. If such majority fail to remonstrate within fifteen days or shall petition the board for the improvement said board may by a majority vote approve the same and shall canse an ordinance to be prepared and reported to the assembly therefor. ’ ’
Section 16, article 6 of the Charter provides:
“Upon the recommendation of any ordinance by the board of public improvements the assembly shall have the power, when such ordinance shall be accompanied by a remonstrance as hereinbefore provided, by a vote of two-thirds of the members-elect of each house and in all other cases by a vote of a majority ■of the members-elect of each house to pass such ordinance, and order the making of such improvement. ’ ’
Prom said charter provisions it clearly appears that it becomes necessary that the exact boundaries ■of the benefit district be known at the time within which the property owners may protest. If the district is not known or fixed at this time then it would be impossible to determine with accuracy whether the ■owners of a “major part of the area of the land made taxable” had filed a protest against the. proposed improvement, or, on the other hand, to determine when '“such majority” had petitioned for said improvement within the meaning' of said charter. Furthermore, if the district is not fixed by the conditions then existing property owners in that vicinity would not be able to ■determine whether they in fact had a right to protest or what portion of their property should be considered in ascertaining the effect of their protest.
It necessarily follows from the conclusion above reached that the district line at the place in question ■should have been located one-half way between the improved street and the parallel portion of Hornsby avenue as it stood prior to its being vacated, and that
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
The foregoing opinion of Williams, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.