Eyerman v. Hardy
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. “It is the duty of the city engineer, * * * in making out a special tax-bill, *' * * to give upon the face of the bill a detailed description of the methods by which he proceeded, the process of computation. * * * ” — Creamer v. Allen, 3 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. “It is the duty of the city engineer, * * * in making out a special tax-bill, *' * * to give upon the face of the bill a detailed description of the methods by which he proceeded, the process of computation. * * * ” — Creamer v. Allen, 3 Mo. App. 545. A tax-bill, and judgment based thereon, against several contiguous “lots” of common ownership, is strictly in conformity with law, and valid. — The State v. Richardson, 21 Mo. 420; Seibert v. Allen, 61 Mo. 488. ' S. Simmons, for the respondents, cited: Miller v. Anheuser, 4 Mo. App. 436; Kefferstein v.…
1Opinion of the CourtHayden, J.
It is admitted in this case that the land against which the special tax-bill issued was regularly subdivided into lots, yet the tax-bill states that the work is chargeable against “lots No. '1 to 11, inclusive;” and then describes the whole tract, one of the lots of which was of nearly twice the frontage of the others. It is further conceded that the sum .charged in the bill is not certified by the engineer to be the proportion of the cost of the whole street chargeable to the lots, or any of them; that the bill does not state that the sum charged is the proportion of any sum, or that the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Miller v. AnheuserMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kemper v. KingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
- Eyerman v. BlakesleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
- Eyerman v. BlakesleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883