City of Boonville ex rel. Cosgrove v. Stephens
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Cooper. Circuit Court. — Sow. Samuel Davis, Special Judge. (1) Proceedings to charge the abutting property with the cost of street improvements are in invitum. Substantial compliance with the statute is essential to bind the property. All who deal with these matters must see that there is no substantial departure from legal requirements. Rose v. Trestrail, 62 Mo. App. 352; Carroll v. City of St. Louis, 4 Mo. App. 192; West v. Porter, 89 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cooper. Circuit Court. — Sow. Samuel Davis, Special Judge. (1) Proceedings to charge the abutting property with the cost of street improvements are in invitum. Substantial compliance with the statute is essential to bind the property. All who deal with these matters must see that there is no substantial departure from legal requirements. Rose v. Trestrail, 62 Mo. App. 352; Carroll v. City of St. Louis, 4 Mo. App. 192; West v. Porter, 89 Mo. App. 153. (2) “Where the municipal authorities are required to advertise for bids and let a contract to the lowest bidder, they are not at…
1Opinion of the Court
ROY, C.
This is a suit upon an amended taxbill, dated November 14, 1904, issued by the city of Boon-ville to Thomas Hogan, and by him assigned to the *345relator. There was judgment for the plaintiff in the trial court, which, on appeal to the Kansas City Court of Appeals, was reversed in an opinion reported in 95 S. W. 314. One of the judges of that court being of the opinion that its decision is contrary to Cole v. Skrainka, 105 Mo. 309, the cause was transferred to this court.
It is based upon a special assessment, made according “to the front foot rule,” against defendant’s lot for its…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- City of St. Louis ex rel. Seibert v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Cole v. SkrainkaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago & Alton RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Adams v. LindellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1878
- Adams v. LindellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Elmendorf v. City of San AntonioCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Needles v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1963
- Sachs Steel & Supply Co. v. St. Louis Auto Parts & Salvage Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1959
- Boggess v. PenceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1959
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. HaywardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.