Rutherford v. Hamilton
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. M. A. Reed, Special Judge. (1) (a) The act approved March 28, 1881 (Laws, 1881, p. 69), does not apportion the cost of constructing this sewer upon the adjoining property fronting upon the work done. (&) The evidence showed that the city engineer apportioned the cost of this sewer by “the front-foot rule.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. M. A. Reed, Special Judge. (1) (a) The act approved March 28, 1881 (Laws, 1881, p. 69), does not apportion the cost of constructing this sewer upon the adjoining property fronting upon the work done. (&) The evidence showed that the city engineer apportioned the cost of this sewer by “the front-foot rule.” These defendants deny that the city engineer was authorized to decide the way in which the cost of constructing this sewer should be apportioned among the several lots or parcels of land which front upon it. Sec. 2, Acts of 1881, p. 70.…
1Opinion of the CourtBarclay, J.
This is an action to enforce a special tax-bill issued by the city engineer of St. Joseph in payment, for a lateral sewer designed for the drainage of adjacent property of-which defendant owns a part. The work was done by authority of the special charter of St. Joseph (1851) and its amendments, and ordinances thereunder, as well as of “an act authorizing cities acting under special charters and containing more than thirty thousand and less than fifty thousand inhabitants to establish a system of sewerage and to construct, establish and keep in repair sewers, culverts and drains,” approved…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State ex rel. Parker v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Inhabitants of Palmyra v. MortonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- City ex rel. McGrath v. ClemensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Granger v. Original Empire Mill & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1881
- Sheehan v. OwenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- French v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Kansas City v. J. I. Case Threshing MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
- Lynch v. MurphySupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Aurora Water Co. v. City of AuroraSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Fiedler v. EckfeldtIllinois Supreme Court · 1929
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.