Case Name: City of Kansas to use of T. J. Enright, Appellant, v. S. E. Ratekin, Respondent
Court: Kansas City Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1888-02-06
Citations: 30 Mo. App. 416
Docket Number: 
Parties: City of Kansas to use of T. J. Enright, Appellant, v. S. E. Ratekin, Respondent.
Judges: Philips, P. J., dissents.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 416–431

Head Matter:
City of Kansas to use of T. J. Enright, Appellant, v. S. E. Ratekin, Respondent.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
February 6, 1888.
l. Chaster of Kansas City—Provisions as to Sewers—Requirements as to Connections—Case Adjudged.—The charter of Kansas City as to district sewers (art. 9, sec. 2, of charter) provides as follows : “ District sewers shall be established within the limits of the district to be described by ordinance, connecting with a public sewer or other district sewer, or with the natural course of drainage, as such case may be.” The court, at the request of the parties, made findings of facts in the case, of which one is as fol-* lows : “ That the said sewer does not, and never did connect with any public sewer, or district sewer, or natural course of drainage, as contemplated by the charter of the City of Kansas.” Held, that the tax bill, issued on a contract made under an ordinance for the-construction of this sewer, is void. (Philips, P. J., dissents).
3. Dedication—Oharacter of Evidence to Sustain.—Where, without judicial proceedings or compensation, or solemn form of conveyances, it is sought to establish in pais, a divestiture of the citizen’s landed property in favor of the public, the proof ought to be so cogent, persuasive, and full, as to leave nq reasonable doubt of the owner’s intent and consent.
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court, Hon. James H. Slover, Judge.
Affirmed.
The case is stated in tke opinion.
C. A. Kenyon, for the appellant.
I. Tke large stone culvert crossing Bluff street at tke foot of Lincoln street, was a public sewer within tke meaning of article nine, section two, of the amended charter of Kansas City. Tke City of Kansas has no power to construct a culvert, so-called, except by virtue of its power to construct public sewers. Charter Kansas City, art. 9. Webster says: “A sewer is adrain or passage to convey off water or filth underground, — a subterrranean canal.” Culvert: “An arched drain for passage of water under road or canal,” etc. See also Burrill Law Diet., title, Sewer. “ Sewer is a general term and includes culvert, just as street has been held to be, which includes sidewalk.” Tuber v. Or of miller, 7 West. Rep. 358. In Bennett v. Neto Bedford, 110 Mass. 433, a subterranean aqueduct was held. to be a common sewer. The court said: “An appropriate use of which may be to relieve from natural as well as surface flow of water.” Earle, J., in Queen v. Goldenanchter, L. B. L. R. 1 Q. B. 328: ' “ The definition of sewer is not precise, but we think it ought to be construed according to its preamble and thus giving force to enactments.”
II. Article nine, section two, of the amended charter of Kansas City, does not require a direct and immediate connection with a public or district sewer. The case at bar is on all fours with the case of Byerman v. Blalceley, 78 Mo. 145. A license may be created by a course of conduct, or implied from circumstances; and when created is justification for acts done under it, and cannot be revoked so long as it is essential to the enjoyment of an interest permitted to be created by the assent of the licensor. Balcer v. Railroad, 57 Mo. 273; Stephenson v. Saline Go., 65 Mo. 425 ; Melton v. Smith, 65 Mo. 315 ; Doe v. Oliver, 2 Smith Lead. Cas. 761; 2 Am. Lead. Cas. 568, 569 ; Heaney v. Heaney, 2 Denio, 625 ; Goodioin v. Cincinnati, 18 Ohio St. 269 ; 2 Herman on Estoppel, secs. 982, 985.
III. If a sewer is constructed over private property with the knowledge of the owner under an ordinance of the city and the owner makes no objection thereto and makes no effort to prevent the same, such owner is •thereafter estopped from closing up such sewer. Nor will the ordinance be void, and special assessments cannot be defeated on the ground that the sewer is over private property. Village v. Bordén, 94 111. 34, and. cases cited ; Gone v. Hartford, 28 Conn. 376-7. Injunction will prevent him from closing it up. Masonic Temple Ass'n ». Harris, 9 Atl. Rep. 737.
IY. An owner of land may without deed or writing dedicate it to public use ; no particular form or ceremony is necessary; all that is required is the assent of the owner, and the fact of its being used for public purposes, and individual rights acquired by it. The law considers it an'estoppel in pais, which precludes the owner from revoking the dedication. Rector ». Hartt, 8 Mo. 457, 458 ; Griffin v. City, 135 Mass. 365 ; Broolc ». Curtis, 50 N. Y. 639 ; Ferry v. Dodge Go., 6 Neb. 18; Price v. Thompson, 48 Mo. 361.
Y. ‘ ‘ Dedication has been established in every conceivable way in which the intention of the parties could be manifested.” Waugh «. Luch, 28 111. 488.
YI. Under a charter like that of Kansas City, notice or objection to be valid must be on the mayor or council, and not on the clerk, engineer, or other officer. 2 Dillon on Mun. Corp. [3 Ed.] sec. 237 and note; Hichols v. Boston, 98 Mass. 39 ; Harrington v. ■School District, 30 Yt. 155; Hayden ». Middlesex, 10 Mass. 397. Right of way for sewer may be condemned after sewer is built. Kansas City Charter, art. 9; State v. Jersey City, 29 N. J. Law, 452.
YII. The instruction defining what was natural course of drainage within the meaning of article nine, section two, of amended charter, had evidence to support it, and should have been given. Gillett ». Johnson, 30 Conn. 180; Earl v. Dettert, 1 Beasley (N. J.) 280, 283.
Wallace Pratt and Frank F. Brumback, for the respondent.
I. A municipal corporation in creating a lien upon-the property of one of its citizens is bound to proceed strictly according to the local laws that govern it. Its organic law fixes the limit of its action, and- contracts resulting from the exercise of its powers in a manner ■different from that laid down by its charter are ultra mires and absolutely void. Kiley m. Oppenheimer, 55 Mo. 374 ; Leach v. Cargill, 60 Mo. 316 ; State m. Bank, 45 Mo. 528; City m. Whipple, 71 Mo. 519; 1 Dillon Mun. Corp., sec. 89; 2 Dillon Mun. Corp., secs. 753, 769.
II. The sewer in question does not connect with any “ public sewer or other district sewer, or with any natural course of drainage,” as it is provided by the charter of the City of Kansas, all sewers to be paid for in special tax bills, shall connect, and, therefore, the the ordinance and tax bills, in this case, are void. Charter Kansas City, art. 9, sec. 2; Laws of Mo. 1875, p. 256 ; City m. Swope, 79 Mo. 446 ; Lancaster m. Armstrong, 56 Mo. 298.
III. The, stone culvert built across and under Bluff street to protect the street from wash of surface water, with which the Bluff street sewer connects, is not a public sewer within the meaning of article nine, section two, of the charter of the City of Kansas, but is a “culvert” as distinguished from a “sewer” by that very charter and was built under a distinct authority to build a “culvert.” Charter of Kansas City, art. 3, subdivs. 7, 8; Sess. Laws Mo., 1875, pp. 204, 205; art. 8, sec. '7; Sess. Laws Mo., 1875, p. 254.
IY The connection of a sewer required by the city charter means a direct connection ; or, at least, a connection through a culvert entirely under the control of the city, and subject to no question in regard to its permanence.' At all events the appellant cannot be heard to complain in this court because he himself asked the trial court to declare that a connection with a public sewer meant a direct connection. He cannot try his case on one theory in the court below and on another in this court. Walker m. Owen, 79 Mo. 568; Whetstone m. Shaw, 70 Mo. 580; Loomis m. Railroad, 17 Mo. App. 840; Duffy m. Railroad, 19 Mo. App. 380; Oberbeck m. ■Sportsman's Park Ass'n, 17 Mo. App. 310.
V. Perhaps the Union Depot Company and Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company were bound to take care of the surface water that came through the Bluff street culvert prior to the construction of the Bluff street sewer, but they certainly were not bound to take care of the sewage that was poured into their trench by the Bluff street sewer. Emptying the sewer upon private lands created a nuisance which could be abated. Charter Of City of Kansas, art. 8, sec. 7; Session Laws Missouri, 1875, p. 254 ; Angelí on Water Courses [6 Ed.] sec. 1086, p. 138; Imler v. Springfield, 55 Mo. 119 ; Stewart v. City, 79 Mo. 603; Wilson v. Mayor, 1 Denio (N.Y.) 595 ; Field v. Railroad, 21 Mo. App. 600 ; Dillon on Mun. Corp., secs. 1040, 1051 ; Woodward V. Worcester, 21 Mass. 1245; Am v. City, 14 Fed. Rep. 236; Beard v. Murphy, 37 Yt. 104; Cauffman v. Cruesmer, 26 Pa. St. 407; Wood on Nuisances, secs. 118, 119, pp. 748, 876, 877; Brayton v. Fall River, 113 Mass. 227.
YI. The evidence shows that there was no estoppel against the Union Depot Company. In order to constitute a dedication of lands to public use by estoppel in pais it must appear that the conduct and acts of the owner are such as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the intention to make such dedication. Any declarations or acts by the owner inconsistent with an intention to dedicate, at once destroys the ground of dedication by estoppel. Silence alone will not make a dedication, and a protest against the use of the land by the public is conclusive evidence that there was no intention to dedicate. McShafie v. Moberly, 79 Mo. 41; Landis v. Hamilton, 77 Mo. 554; Acton v. Dooley, 74 Mo. 63 ; Herman on Estoppel [2 Ed.] 1279, 1087; Bigelow on Estoppel, 438; Wood on Nuisances, secs. 524, 715; Wallcer v. Railroad, 57 Mo. 275; Town v. Stevenson, 69 Mo. 372; Radenhurst v. Coates, 6 Grant’s Ch. (Ontario) 140.
YII. The appellant cannot in this court raise the point that the Union Depot Company’s trench has been dedicated by estoppel, because he asked, in the court below, an instruction directly opposed to the principle of law now invoked by him. Cases cited above.
VIII. Notice' given to an officer of a municipal corporation within whose province the matters in respect of which the notice is given lie, is valid and a proper notice. The engineer of the City of Kansas has charge-of all public improvements, and is the proper person to whom protest should be made. 2 Dillon on Mun. Corp. (3 Ed.) sec. 237, and note/, Charter of City of Kansas, art. 4, sec. 14.

Opinion:
Ellison, J.
This was a suit upon a special tax bill issued by the City of Kansas for constructing a district sewer known as the Bluff street sewer, in sewer district number twenty-nine, under ordinance number 22,662. The work was done and the tax bill issued in proper form.
The defendant answered, setting up among others the following defence: — Third.—That "said district sewer, so built and constructed, according to said ordinance number 22,662, does not 'and never did connect with any public sewer or district sewer, Or with any natural course of drainage", and that, therefore, the tax bill and ordinance were void.
It appears that the city had built a culvert across Bluff street, at the foot of Lincoln street, through which surface water passed on to adjoining flat lands of the Union Depot Company and the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company; that afterwards these lands were raised by filling in, laying tracks, etc., and to protect them the companies built a trench across their grounds, connecting at one end with the culvert at Bluff street, and at the other with a district- sewer built by the city about the same time the trench was constructed by the companies. By this means the surface water passing through the culvert ran across the private property of the companies through their private trench. Section two of the city ordinance establishing this sewer provides for the connection of one end of it as follows: "Sec. 2. That a district sewer is hereby established and shall be constructed within said sewer district number twenty-nine, as hereby established, which shall consist of a district main sewer of eighteen inches inside diameter, beginning at. the culvert heretofore constructed across- and under Bluff street at the foot of Lincoln street, connecting with the open trench, culvert, or sewer, crossing the grounds of the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company and the Union Depot Company of Kansas City to a connection with the lateral sewer of district sewer number one hundred and twenty-three."
The portion of the charter under which this ordinance was passed is as follows: "Sec. 2. District sewers shall be established within the limits of the districts to be described by ordinance, connecting with a public sewer or other district sewer, or with the natural course of drainage as each case may be."
The court at the request of the parties made findings of facts in the cause, of which one is as follows: "19. That the said sewer does not and never did connect with any public sewer, or district sewer or any natural course of drainage, as contemplated by the amended charter of the City of Kansas." This finding was justified by the evidence, and under the authority of the City of Kansas v. Swope, 79 Mo. 446, we [must hold the tax bill, upon which this suit was founded, to be void. The case was well stated by the trial judge in his written opinion in the case, in which he says : "It will thus be seen that the sewer in question depends for its outlet upon the open private sewet or trench owned and controlled by the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company and the Union Depot Company, and located upon the private grounds of these companies. And does not, as required by the city charter, connect with any public sewer, or district sewer, or with any natural course of drainage. The requirements of the charter cannot be disregarded in this way. The city has no preexistent right or implied power in matters of this kind, and when it undertakes to act, it must do so within the limits prescribed by the legislature and if it failed so to do then its acts are void." Kiley v. Oppenheimer, 55 Mo. 374; Leach v. Cargill, 60 Mo. 316; City of Kansas v. Swope, supra.
It is sought to avoid the effect of the finding made by the trial court, by the contention that the trench across the private ground of the Union Depot and Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Companies has become a sewer by dedication. But there is no evidence in the record to suppoz't such contention. I discover nothing from which a reasonable inference of a dedication could be drawn. "Where without judicial proceedings or compensation, or solemn form of conveyance, it is sought to establish, in pais, a divestiture of the citizen's landed property in favor of the public, the proof ought to be so cogent, persuasive, and full, as to leave no reasonable doubt of the existence of the owner's intent and consent." McShane v. City, 79 Mo. 41.
It is also insisted that these companies are forever estopped from asserting that their trench is not a public sewer and from preventing its use for sewerage purposes by the city. There is likewise no evidence upon which to base this assertion. The companies connected their trench with the culvert before this sewer was contemplated. Such connection was solely for the purpose of protecting their grounds from surface water and was not intended for the benefit of the public. Besides, allowing surface water to run through their trench is quite a different matter from permitting the foul sewage of a city to pass through it. There is no evidence to show that the companies knew of the intention of the city in regard to this connection until long after the sewer was begun and then the president of one of them protested against it.
The trial court properly found from the evidence that these companies ' ' never agreed or consented to the use of such private sewer for sewerage purposes."
The judgment, with the concurrence of Judge Hall, is affirmed
Philips, P. J., dissents.