Court Opinion

ID: 9680697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:36:53.348793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:30.010240
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
In its motion for rehearing respondent contends that by holding that Rule 70 and pertinent MAI instructions are applicable and mandatory in charter condemnation cases, we are overruling, without distin*843guishing, earlier cases such as Kansas City v. Marsh Oil Co., 140 Mo. 458, 41 S.W. 943 (1897). It asserts this on the stated grounds that such cases hold “(1) that the charter condemnation provisions of Kansas City are a complete procedure which supersedes general laws, and (2) that condemnation proceedings by municipalities for land upon which to locate sewers is a purely local concern.”
We do not agree that our decision is inconsistent with cases such as the Marsh Oil Company case which recognized the right of a charter city to make provision in its charter for condemnation proceedings to acquire lands for local purposes such as streets, parks and sewers. While the Marsh Oil Company case said, 41 S.W. 1. c. 947, that: “It follows that notwithstanding the charter did not follow the civil practice, as prescribed in the code of practice, it was not for that reason out of harmony with the constitution or laws, and the special provisions thereof must control * * we do not interpret this language as holding that a charter city may even prescribe the form and kind of instructions to be given to the jury and the way a circuit judge conducts his court. These are things which courts must regulate. The Constitution, as recognized in the principal opinion, confers on this Court the right to promulgate rules such as Rule 70. Such authorization includes the right to make such rules applicable to cases of charter cities as well as other municipalities. If courts cannot govern such things as the taking of depositions, the admission and exclusion of evidence, the time and manner of instructing juries, etc., we would have a situation in which the rules of practice could vary from case to case and circuit to circuit, depending on local rules therein prescribed by the charter unit involved in a particular case. We reject respondent’s, contention.
We have considered respondent’s other points in its motion for rehearing but overrule them. Hence, respondent’s motion for rehearing is overruled.