City of St. Louis v. King
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. —Hon. Hiram N. Moore, Judge. (1) A municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers and no others. First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation — not simply convenient, but indispensable. Dillon, Munic. Corp., sec. 89; Tiedemann, Mun.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. —Hon. Hiram N. Moore, Judge. (1) A municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers and no others. First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation — not simply convenient, but indispensable. Dillon, Munic. Corp., sec. 89; Tiedemann, Mun. Corp., sec. 110'; Knapp v. Kansas City, 48 Mo. App. 485; Carpenter v. Realty Co., 103 Mo. App. 480; State v. Butler, 178 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
This was an action for the violation of an ordinance of St. Louis, known as Ordinance No. 19991, Section 1447, of the Revised Ordinances of said city, approved April 3, 1900, which provides: “Section 1447, Obscene Newspaper Advertisements Prohibited. — Any person who shall in the city of St. Louis advertise or cause to be advertised, in any newspaper printed or circulated in said city, or who shall print or publish any advertisement or notice in any newspaper printed or circulated as aforesaid, purporting to give information as to the treatment of venereal or private or womb diseases, or…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- City of Nevada ex rel. Gilfillan v. EddySupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- State ex rel. Garner v. Missouri & Kansas Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- City of St. Louis v. Edward Heitzeberg Packing & Provision Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Ex parte Mayor of FlorenceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Tietjens v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- Ex Parte WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1940
- Taylor v. DimmittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935
- Anderson v. City of OlivetteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1975
- Kansas City v. FroggeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.