State ex rel. Bruenting Realty Co. v. Thomas
Supreme Court of Missouri
Prohibition. (1) The city has no express power under the charter to condemn an existing viaduct and railroad and pay therefor by special assessments.
Read the full summary
Prohibition. (1) The city has no express power under the charter to condemn an existing viaduct and railroad and pay therefor by special assessments. Kansas City Charter, art. 1, sec. 1, pp. 95, 96, 97; art. 13, sec. 1, pp. 398 to 443; art. 6, see. 1, p. 252; art. 6, sec. 2, pp. 254, 255; art. 6, sec. 3, p. 260 ; art 6, sec. 17, pp. 279, 280; art. 8, sec. 28, pp. 351, 352; Kansas City v. Hyde, 196 Mo. 498. (2) The city does not have implied power to condemn an existing viaduct and railroad and pay therefor by special assessment. DeGeofroy v. Merchants Bridge Terminal Ry. Co., 179 Mo. 719;…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, C. J.
On December 12, 1918, the city of Kansas City passed an ordinance to condemn certain lands, rights-of-way, and a steel, iron and concrete via*91duct constructed thereon, extending from Minnesota Avenue in Kansas City. Kansas, to and connecting Bluff Street at the intersection of Sixth Street, in Kansas City, Missouri, known as the Inter-City Viaduct. The total length of the main structure is one mile and a half, and the length of the approach is eighteen hundred and fifty-eight feet.
Provision has been made in Kansas City, Kansas, to acquire that portion of the land, rights-of-way and viaduct…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ferguson v. OrchardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Christy's Administrator v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
3Cited by4 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Phillips v. BartonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1923
- Kansas City v. ReinwaldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
- In Re East Bottoms Drainage Levee DistrictSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- Meriwether v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1924