Nelson v. Goebel
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. Under its charters of 1889 and 1841, the city had power to levy the tax, and to sell for the non-payment of it. 2. All the proceedings were regular, and in substantial conformity with the provisions of the charter and ordinances.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. Under its charters of 1889 and 1841, the city had power to levy the tax, and to sell for the non-payment of it. 2. All the proceedings were regular, and in substantial conformity with the provisions of the charter and ordinances. It is said that the assessor, in his return, did not mention the streets which bounded the property, nor the name of the owner, as he was required to do by section six of the ordinance, approved March 28, 1835. To this it may be answered, that the ordinance is merely directory, and the assessment and return are in substantial…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
This was a suit brought by Nelson to recover a lot of ground in the city of St. Louis. The plaintiff claims title under the city, by virtue of a forfeiture to the city for the non-payment of taxes, and then under a sale by the city to the plaintiff. On the trial below, the court instructed the jury, “ that, taking and considering all the evidence in this case as true, still the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and the jury should find the issue for the defendant.” Upon this instruction, the plaintiff submitted to a non-suit, made an unsuccessful motion to set it aside, and afterwards…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Gates v. LabeaumeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Corn v. City of CameronMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- City of Linneus v. LockeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- McGuire v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908