Belcher Sugar Refining Co. v. St. Louis Grain Elevator Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. The lease of the city to the defendant and defendant’s proposed occupation of the promises are illegal, 1st, Because it is a diversion of the use in the property condemned, and a'violation of the trust assumed hy the city; 2nd, It is placing an additional burden upon the propei’ty, the fee thereof being in the plaintiff,not contemplated in the condemnation proceedings; 3rd, It being an additional burden, if the proposed warehouse is…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. The lease of the city to the defendant and defendant’s proposed occupation of the promises are illegal, 1st, Because it is a diversion of the use in the property condemned, and a'violation of the trust assumed hy the city; 2nd, It is placing an additional burden upon the propei’ty, the fee thereof being in the plaintiff,not contemplated in the condemnation proceedings; 3rd, It being an additional burden, if the proposed warehouse is considered for public use, it is taking and damaging plaintiff’’s property without compensation, contrary to the common…
1Opinion of the CourtHenry, J.
The plaintiff owned in the city of St. Louis all of city block No. 225, and nearly all of block 226. These blocks extend to the Mississippi river, and in 1867, in condemnation proceedings instituted by the city, a portion of the property was condemned for wharf purposes, and plaintiff was allowed $23,993 damages, and was assessed for benefits $2,350. The difference between the two amounts was paid to plaintiff, who subsequently acquired all that it owns of block 226, except thirty feet which it owned when the condemnation was had. • In 1871 the city graded the wharf in front of these blocks,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Barney v. KeokukSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Barclay v. Richard W. Howell's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Warren v. MayorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- Rutherford v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- O'Conner v. State ex rel. Potter's Adm'rOhio Supreme Court · 1849
3Cited by31 opinions
- Smith v. McDowellIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railway Co. v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Julia Building Ass'n v. Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Field v. BarlingIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Neil v. Independent Realty Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1927
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.