a public entity has assumed “exclusive control and possession” over property to the exclusion of the public entity owner will be necessarily demanding. On this point, it is worthy of note that the State is afforded the Constitutional authority to delegate maintenance duties to a municipality by contract. Article IV, section 31 of the Missouri Constitution provides, in relevant part: The commission may enter into contracts with cities, counties or other political subdivisions for and concerning the maintenance of, and regulation of traffic on any state highway within such cities, counties or subdivision. Such a maintenance contract may be used to establish that the State has relinquished its duties and obligations over state highways to another public entity. Crofton, 660 S.W.2d at 717 (<HOLDING>). A maintenance agreement of the nature,
holding that broker whose contract called for commission on sale of property was not entitled to commission on transfer of property to partnership in which owner had an interest and that because broker was not entitled to commission under terms of his contract he also could not recover against a third person on theory of tortious interference with that contract holding that our state constitution and statutes  vest exclusive control dominion power and jurisdiction over state highways in the commission and observing that no maintenance ayreement between appellantcity and the commission which permissibly would create an exception to the duty of the commission and which would place a nondelegable duty on appellantcity had been entered holding that the commission is required by our constitution to ascertain the value of a utilitys property within the state in setting just and reasonable rates holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error holding that even when there is a conflict of evidence before the commission and the evidence was such that the commission could have reasonably reached a contrary decision the commissions decision was not arbitrary and capricious