Bohle's Administrator v. Stannard
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The fact that the Council passed the ordinance was sufficient to show the necessity for the work. — Miller v. Anheuser, 2 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The fact that the Council passed the ordinance was sufficient to show the necessity for the work. — Miller v. Anheuser, 2 Mo. App. 169 ; The Oity v. QSters, 36 Mo. 460. And there was no necessity for looking to the preamble. —Young v. The Oity, 47 Mo. 492 ; Townsend v. Hoyle, 20 Conn. 1-9. The preamble was effective only in showing that the ordinance was based upon the petition, for which purpose it is to be used in the solution of the question as to what was the jurisdictional basis of 'the ordinance. — ''The Oity v. Tiefel, 42 Mo. 590; The State v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
This is an action on a special tax-bill for macadamizing Bremen Avenue in St. Louis, between Broadway and the river. The petition is in the usual form. The answers of the defendants set up as matter of affirmative defence that the charter of St. Louis in force when the ordinance was passed under which the work was done provided that in cases where the mayor and City Council should deem it necessary, and also in all cases where a majority of the owners, resident thereon, of the land and lots fronting on any street should petition for the grading, paving, or macadamizing thereof, the City…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Woodruff v. GilchristNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Eld v. GorhamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1849
- Miller v. AnheuserMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kern County Union High School District v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Knapp v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Doemker v. City of Richmond HeightsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- Seibert v. TiffanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879