Murray v. Kansas City
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. James G-ibson, Judge. (1) The respondent was not entitled to recover under the pleadings and evidence, for the reason that it stands admitted that the viaduct, by the contract,was to be built upon and over private property. The respondent had full knowedge of this fact.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. James G-ibson, Judge. (1) The respondent was not entitled to recover under the pleadings and evidence, for the reason that it stands admitted that the viaduct, by the contract,was to be built upon and over private property. The respondent had full knowedge of this fact. The city had no power or authority under its charter to build the viaduct upon private ground, and any contract made by the city for such purpose was without power or authority, and any such contract was tbttra ñires. When a person enters into a contract with the city, it is his…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
In November, 1887, the City of Kansas by ordinance provided, for the construction of an iron bridge or viaduct from the top of the bluff at Fourth street passing west across and over the railroad tracks below to Mill street, — said space from the bluff to said Mill street being designated as the extension of Fourth street. Murray contracted with the city for the construction of the stone piers which were to support the *107structure. He proceeded in pursuance of his contract, got some material together and did some work on construction. But at this point the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bean v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
3Cited by4 opinions
- Hensler v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Ash & Gentry v. City of IndependenceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Coonan v. City of Cape GirardeauMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1905