City of St. Louis v. Foster
Supreme Court of Missouri
-Appealfrom St. Louis Criminal Court. The ordinance was invalid, because it had no enacting clause. The book of ordinances, a revision, has but one ordinance properly enacted, whereas each ordinance must be for itself ordained. The ordinance was also invalid, because it had not been read in council three different days, and also because it was not printed and published as required by charter; nor was it admissible in evidence, not being certified by the register.
Read the full summary
-Appealfrom St. Louis Criminal Court. The ordinance was invalid, because it had no enacting clause. The book of ordinances, a revision, has but one ordinance properly enacted, whereas each ordinance must be for itself ordained. The ordinance was also invalid, because it had not been read in council three different days, and also because it was not printed and published as required by charter; nor was it admissible in evidence, not being certified by the register. “ Revised Ordinances 1871” constitute one ordinance at the beginning of which is the ordaining clause. The provision for…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The defendant was prosecuted for violating an ordinance of the City of St. Louis, prohibiting the setting up and keeping gaming tables and gambling devises. Upon the trial the defendant objected to the admission of the City ordinances in evidence, on the alleged ground, that they were invalid. The objection was overruled, and this constitutes .the main error relied on.'
It is first contended that the ordinance is void and of no effect, because the' style or ordaining clause appear to have been omitted.' The Charter requires, that the style of the ordinances passed by the City of St. Louis…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- City of St. Louis v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Pacific Railroad v. GovernorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Striker v. KellyNew York Supreme Court · 1845
- Ex Parte J. B. Elmendorf v. Mayor of New-YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- City of Indianola v. JonesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
3Cited by24 opinions
- Colby v. City of MedfordOregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1901
- State ex rel. North & South Railway Co. v. MeierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- State v. ProutySupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- City of St. Louis v. GleasonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.