Huggins v. Rackliffe-Gibson Construction Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.— Hon. Lucian J. Eastin, Judge. The court erred in overruling RacMiffe-Gibson Construction Company’s demurrer: First, because the designating notice was in compliance with the law governing cities of the second class and was sufficient. Gist v. Racldiffe-Gibson Const. Co., 123 S. W. Rep. 921. Second, because ordinance No. 4714 did fix the time within which the work was to be completed and was a perfectly valid ordinance.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.— Hon. Lucian J. Eastin, Judge. The court erred in overruling RacMiffe-Gibson Construction Company’s demurrer: First, because the designating notice was in compliance with the law governing cities of the second class and was sufficient. Gist v. Racldiffe-Gibson Const. Co., 123 S. W. Rep. 921. Second, because ordinance No. 4714 did fix the time within which the work was to be completed and was a perfectly valid ordinance. All the points raised by respondent in his petition have been heretofore by this court and the' Supreme Court determined adversely to his…
1Opinion of the CourtBroad Des, P. J.
This is a suit to cancel certain taxbills.
On July 16, 1907,. the city of St. Joseph passed a special ordinance which provided for certain street improvements. Thereafter, under authority of said ordinance, the city, awarded the contract to defendant construction company, it being the lowest and best bidder. The contract was awarded on the 31st day of July, 1908, by the terms of which the company was given six months to complete the same. On the second day of January, 1909, the work was completed and accepted by the city, which was within the time specified. On the 22d day of January, the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gist v. Rackliffe-Gibson Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Cushing v. RichardsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910