State ex rel. Marshall v. Bugg
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus. (1) The proceedings instituted by relators were not for the purpose of constructing new ditches, hut as is admitted by the return and as is alleged in the petition, for the express purpose of “altering, deepening and widening” the ditches, which had been constructed, and which were known as drainage district No. 3. Meranda v. Spurlin, 100 Ind. 383; Rodgersjv.
Read the full summary
Mandamus. (1) The proceedings instituted by relators were not for the purpose of constructing new ditches, hut as is admitted by the return and as is alleged in the petition, for the express purpose of “altering, deepening and widening” the ditches, which had been constructed, and which were known as drainage district No. 3. Meranda v. Spurlin, 100 Ind. 383; Rodgersjv. Venus, 137 Ind. 224; Drebert v. Frier, 106 Ind. 512; Hardy v. McKinney, 107 Ind. 371; Denton v. Thompson, 136 Ind. 459; Evans v. West, 138 Ind. 621. To hold, when a drainage district is once organized and the improvements…
1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.
This is an original proceeding by mandamus, instituted by relators in this court, to compel •the respondents, William H. Bugg and James Mc-Pheeters, who are, respectively, presiding judge and clerk of the county court of Scott county, Missouri, to sign and attest bonds of Scott county, Missouri, to the amount of one hundred thousand dollars, which were, by the county court of Scott county, Missouri, on the 16th day of December, 1907, ordered issued to pay for the construction of a system of ditches and levees in what is known as Drainage District No. 4 of Scott county, Missouri.
We do not deem…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Egyptian Levee Co. v. HardinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Mound City Land & Stock Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Morrison v. MoreySupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Meranda v. SpurlinIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Kansas City v. DuncanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Co. v. WellesSupreme Court of Florida · 1919
- Lee Wilson & Co. v. William R. Compton Bond & Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- State Ex Rel. Ross v. General American Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935
- State ex rel. McWilliams v. BatesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Young v. DunlapMissouri Court of Appeals · 1916
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.