Legal Opinion

City of Linneus v. Locke

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 11, 1887PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error to Linn Circuit Court, Hon. Henry Lander, Special Judge. The case is stated in the opinion: I. The finding of the court is against the law. Rev. Stat., sect. 4942. II. The court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the evidence ; the petition more than satisfies the statutory • requirements, and the proof filled its full measure; the certified tax bill made out a prima facie case; the following authorities abundantly support our conclusion: Stifel v. Dougherty, 6 Mo.

Read the full summary

Error to Linn Circuit Court, Hon. Henry Lander, Special Judge. The case is stated in the opinion: I. The finding of the court is against the law. Rev. Stat., sect. 4942. II. The court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the evidence ; the petition more than satisfies the statutory • requirements, and the proof filled its full measure; the certified tax bill made out a prima facie case; the following authorities abundantly support our conclusion: Stifel v. Dougherty, 6 Mo. App. 441; Haegele v. Malinckrodt, 3 Mo. App. 329 ; Or earner n. Allen, 3 Mo. App. 545; Wand v. Oreen, 7 Mo. App. 82; St.…

1Opinion of the CourtPhilips, P. J.

This is an action to recover a special tax, claimed to be owing the plaintiff, a municipal corporation of the fourth class, for the cost of a sidewalk along defendant’s property, built by the city.

The petition is in the usual form. The answer, after admitting the corporate existence of plaintiff, and the ownership of the property by defendant, tendered the general issue as to all the other allegations of the petition. To sustain the issues on its part the plaintiff, after *410proof that E. W. Wilcox was city clerk, read in evidence the following tax certificate:

“ State op Missouri, ) “ County of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Nelson v. GoebelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
  2. Carroll v. EatonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
  3. Cupples v. GalliganMissouri Court of Appeals · 1878

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Adkins v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1889

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API