Legal Opinion

Estes v. Owen

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1886PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. Jos. P. GtRtjbb, J udge. The tax bills make a prima facie case. Ess v. Bouton, 64 Mo. 105 ; Menan v. Smith, 60 Mo. 294. The power to compel property or lot owners to macadamize is a continuing one, and extends to compelling to repair when required by the municipal authorities. 2 Dillon on Mun.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. Jos. P. GtRtjbb, J udge. The tax bills make a prima facie case. Ess v. Bouton, 64 Mo. 105 ; Menan v. Smith, 60 Mo. 294. The power to compel property or lot owners to macadamize is a continuing one, and extends to compelling to repair when required by the municipal authorities. 2 Dillon on Mun. Corp. [3 Ed.] p. 779, sec. 780 (619), and case cited in foot note ; Morley v. Weakly, 86 Mo. 451; McCormick v. Pachin, 53 Mo. 33, and cases cited; Farrar v. City of St. Louis, 80 Mo. 379, 392. When, in all material respects, the ordinances relating to contracts…

1Opinion of the Court

Norton, J. —

This is a suit to recover of defendant certain tax bills for work done in repairing a macadamized street in the city of St. Joseph, in front of property owned by defendant. The work was dona *115under a contract awarded by the mayor and council, the same having been authorized by the ordinances of said city. The case was tried before the court without the intervention of a jury. The court sustained a demurrer to the evidence on the ground, as stated in the bill of exceptions, that under its charter the city of St. Joseph had no power to make the contract in suit, and authorize the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Farrar v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
  2. McCormack v. PatchinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
  3. Morley v. WeakleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1885

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Wheeler v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
  2. Moberly v. HoganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
  3. Wood v. Duke Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Skinker v. HemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
  5. Heman v. RingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API