City of St. Louis v. United Railways Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Rom. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) No cause of action is stated in the petition. Neither the ordinance sued upon, the charter of the city, nor the laws of this State authorize an action in debt to be maintained for the refusal to take out the license or pay the charge therefor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Rom. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) No cause of action is stated in the petition. Neither the ordinance sued upon, the charter of the city, nor the laws of this State authorize an action in debt to be maintained for the refusal to take out the license or pay the charge therefor. And the only action that can be prosecuted for the violation of the provisions of the ordinance is one for the penalties prescribed therein; the penal remedy, being the only one provided by the ordinance and authorized by the charter, is exclusive. State ex rel. v. Dix, 159…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
This is one of eight cases brought by plaintiff, the city of St. Louis, against the defendant, the United Railways Company, to enforce the provisions of ordinance No. 21087, known as the “Mill-Tax Ordinance.” These cases were tried and determined in different divisions of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, judgments being rendered in each in favor of plaintiff, from which defendant has appealed. The ordinance in question is an amendment to an ordinance providing for a license tax of $25. on each street car used by any person or corporation in said *407city and authorizes the levying of a…
2Cases cited87 opinions
- Osborn v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Siler v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Dollar Savings Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Home Insurance v. New York StateSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Maine v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Bellerive Investment Co. v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- King v. PriestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
- State Ex Inf. Atty. Gen. v. HedrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
- Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1933
- City of St. Louis v. BaskowitzSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.