Legal Opinion

City of California v. Bunceton Telephone Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 22, 1905PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Moniteau. Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Has e l l, Judga (1) “No city . . . or other municipal corporation shall make any contract unless the same shall be within the scope of its powers or be expressly authorized by law, . ' . . and such contract including the consideration, shall be in writing dated when made and shall be subscribed by the parties thereto or their agents, authorized in writing.” R. S. 1899. sec 6759; Kirkwood y.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.

This is an action for five per cent of the gross receipts of the defendant telephone company. The judgment in the trial court was for the plaintiff city. The cause was tried by the court without the aid of a jury and as the finding made by the court contains a clear statement of the facts upon which the cause of action is based, we herewith produce it, to-wit:

“The court finds that the plaintiff is a municipal corporation located in Moniteau county, Missouri, by an act of the General Assembly of said State, duly passed and approved February 2, 1872; that the defendant is a private corporation…

2Cases cited2 opinions

Perkins v. Independent School DistrictMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
City of Plattsburg v. Peoples' Telephone Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1901

3Cited by4 opinions

Edwards v. School District No. 73Missouri Court of Appeals · 1927
City of Lancaster v. Briggs & MelvinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
Schwabe v. MooreMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
West Virginia Coal Co. v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930