City of St. Paul v. Mullen
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Certain lots belonging to the defendants were -assessed for the construction of a sewer on Summit avenue, in St. Paul. The assessments not being paid, the city applied for judgi ment against the lots. The application was opposed, on the ground that the contract for doing the work did not conform to the requirements of the charter.
Read the full summary
Certain lots belonging to the defendants were -assessed for the construction of a sewer on Summit avenue, in St. Paul. The assessments not being paid, the city applied for judgi ment against the lots. The application was opposed, on the ground that the contract for doing the work did not conform to the requirements of the charter. Thereafter the common council ordered a re-assessment of the same property, pursuant to which a re-assessment was made by the board of public works. The re-assessment was a copy of the original ■assessment, and both assessments included, in addition to the •contract…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
There are only two objections raised in this case that we deem of sufficient importance to mention. There is nothing in any of the others. The first of these two •objections is that because the contract for doing the work was not let as prescribed by the charter, it was void, and no assessment, and consequently no re-assessment, could be made to pay for the work to be done under it; that the contract having been adjudged void, upon the application for judgment upon the original assessment, there was no legal authority to make a re-assessment. Whether this is so depends, of course, on the…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Frederick v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1896
- Duniway v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1905
- Wagoner v. City of La GrandeOregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Brown v. SllvertonOregon Supreme Court · 1920
- City of Atchison v. PriceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.