Court Opinion

ID: 9643891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:43:02.184193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:18.321839
License: Public Domain

WELLIVER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The principal opinion fails to persuade me that the University of Missouri is not a “municipal corporation” within the meaning of § 508.050, RSMo 1978.1 Our cases demonstrate that this Court has consistently adopted a broad definition of “municipal corporation.” Although we have recognized that the term “may vary in meaning depending on the time, place and circumstances under which it is used,” City of Olivette v. Graeler, 338 S.W.2d 827, 835 (Mo.1960), we have construed the term expansively. In Laret Investment Co. v. Dickmann, 345 Mo. 449, 134 S.W.2d 65 (banc 1939), this Court noted that
[t]he term “municipal corporation” is sometimes used in a strict sense to designate a corporation possessing some specified power of local government. In a broader sense it includes public, or quasi public, corporations designed for the performance of an essential public service. ...

This court has adopted the broader definition.

Id. at 454, 134 S.W.2d at 68 (emphasis added). Among the things this Court has said are “municipal corporations” are cities,2 townships under township organization,3 counties,4 housing authorities,5 metropolitan sewer districts,6 power and light compa*737nies,7 county health departments,8 hospitals,9 school districts,10 drainage districts,11 special road districts,12 and fire protection districts.13
The principal opinion argues that “the municipal corporation has a local nature.” That argument fails for two reasons. First, it ignores the precedents established in the previous decisions of this Court. Entities such as hospitals and power and light companies, for example, which we have said are “municipal corporations,” are not necessarily of purely local character. They can, and do, serve vast areas, especially in rural areas that are more sparsely populated. Second, even if “the municipal corporation has a local nature,” the principal opinion ignores the fact that the University is, in a sense, localized. The University’s clientele, its students, may be drawn from all parts of the state, or even from outside the state, but that fact alone is not controlling on the issue here involved. The University’s primary activity — education—is carried on in a centralized location, whether it be the Columbia campus involved in this- case or the Kansas City, St. Louis, or Rolla campus.14
The principal opinion confuses the definitions of “municipal corporation” and “municipality” and relies in part upon the latter, which is narrower, in order to retreat from established doctrine. The opinion relies on Beiser v. Parkway School District, 589 S.W.2d 277 (Mo. banc 1979), which held that a school district is not a “municipality” for purposes of sovereign immunity. There is no contention in this case, however, that the University is a “municipality.” Both Beiser, 589 S.W.2d at 280, and State ex rel. Halferty v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 346 Mo. 1069, 1080-81, 145 S.W.2d 116, 122 (1940), establish that not all municipal corporations are municipalities or municipal townships.
Municipal corporations are public, rather than private, corporations, City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239, 1252, 206 S.W.2d 539, 546 (banc 1947), and this Court has long recognized that the University of Missouri is a public corporation. In Harris v. William R. Compton Bond & Mortgage Co., 244 Mo. 644, 149 S.W. 603 (1912), the Court, upholding the authority of the legislature to create special road districts as “public or municipal corporations,” said that
the Legislature has from time to time created with varying powers the following, among other, public corporations, viz.: the State University; the various normal schools located in different sections of the State; the various eleemosynary institutions, such as the hospitals for the insane and weak-minded; the schools for the blind and deaf and dumb; drainage and levee districts; [and] public road districts ....
Id. at 691, 149 S.W. at 610 (emphasis added). See also Todd v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 347 Mo. 460, 465, 147 S.W.2d 1063, 1064 (1941). In Head v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 47 Mo. 220 (1871), aff'd, 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 526, 22 L.Ed. 160 (1873), this Court stated:
The university is clearly a public institution, and not a private corporation....
... The state established an institution of its own, and provided for its control and government, through its own agents and appointees. The act creating the institution ... declares that a “university is hereby instituted in this State, the *738government whereof shall be vested in a board of curators.” The university is then ... declared a “corporation and body politic” and invested with certain powers.... By establishing the university the State created an agency of its own, through which it proposed to accomplish certain educational objects. In fine, it created a public corporation for educational purposes — a State university.
Id. at 224-25.
The University of Missouri fits squarely within the definition of a municipal corporation. Municipal corporations are (1) public corporations (2) designed for the performance of an essential public service. Laret Investment Co. v. Dickmann, 345 Mo. at 454, 134 S.W.2d at 68. The cases have long recognized that the University is a public corporation providing education as a public service.
By analogy, the University is much like any other governmental institution. It carries on activities that touch the lives of all Missouri residents. Services are provided throughout the state. Other state agencies provide services throughout the state, utilizing branch offices in virtually every county of the state. Generally, venue in actions against them lies only in the county in which their principal offices are located and their principal official duties are performed —e.g., Cole County — unless otherwise provided by statute. State ex rel. Dalton v. Oldham, 336 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Mo. banc 1960). See also State ex rel. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Elliott, 387 S.W.2d 489, 492-93 (Mo. banc 1965).
The University of Missouri was created and established by the General Assembly in 1839. Laws of Mo. 175 (1838-39). It is the oldest state university west of the Mississippi River. Its early history is described in the state’s Official Manual:
The manner in which it was established not only was dramatic, but also demonstrates the strong desire of early day Missourians for higher education.
Missouri was just emerging from frontier settlement days when the General Assembly announced that the state university would be located in the community offering the greatest financial support. These fund and proceeds from the sale of federal lands [for land grant colleges] led to the founding of the university.
Citizens of Boone County and the city of Columbia pledged $117,921 in cash and land to outbid five other competing counties in central Missouri.
State of Missouri, 1979-1980 Official Manual 399 (1979).
I find it extremely hard to believe that those early Missourians and members of the Tenth General Assembly contemplated that the educational dollar should be spent in defending lawsuits all over the state. In this era of the shrinking educational dollar, I find no compelling reason for this Court, under the pretext of interpretation of case law, to decree that which the legislature has not seen fit to enact. Nothing in our prior cases compels that result.
Our alternative writ should be quashed.

. Section 508.050 provides in relevant part that suits against municipal corporations “shall be commenced only in the county in which the municipal corporation is situated.”

. St. Louis Housing Auth. v. City of St. Louis, 361 Mo. 1170, 239 S.W.2d 289 (banc 1951).

. State ex rel. Caldwell v. Little River Drainage Dist., 291 Mo. 72, 79, 236 S.W. 15, 16 (1921).

. See City of Olivette v. Graeler, 338 S.W.2d 827 (Mo.1960).

. St. Louis Housing Auth. v. City of St. Louis, 361 Mo. 1170, 239 S.W.2d 289 (banc 1951).

. Page v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 377 S.W.2d 348 (Mo.1964).

. State ex rel. Halferty v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 346 Mo. 1069, 145 S.W.2d 116 (1940).

. City of Olivette v. Graeler, 338 S.W.2d 827, 835 (Mo.1960).

. Id.

. State ex rel. Caldwell v. Little River Drainage Dist., 291 Mo. 72, 73, 79, 236 S.W. 15, 16 (1921).

. Id.

. Harris v. William R. Compton Bond & Mortgage Co., 244 Mo. 644, 149 S.W. 603 (1912).

. City of Olivette v. Graeler, 338 S.W.2d 827, 835 (Mo.1960).

. This case might well be different had the conduct complained of occurred at the St. Louis, rather than the Columbia, campus. That issue, however, need not be resolved.