Fisher v. City of St. Louis
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. The action should have been brought for failing to issue and deliver to plaintiff proper tax bills, and not for work done.
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
On the 17th of September, 1866, the plaintiff made two contracts with the city for filling up certain ponds situated on private property within the city limits, which had been considered as nuisances. The contracts provided that the work should be paid for “in special tax bills assessed against the owner or owners of the property where the work tvas done,” and that the delivery of such tax bills to the contractor should be in “ full payment” for such work.
The plaintiff performed the service contemplated by the contract, and received, as in payment, certain tax bills, which proved to be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wetmore v. CampbellThe Superior Court of New York City · 1849
- Lee v. CaseySupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Raithel v. DezetterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
3Cited by19 opinions
- Nanson v. JacobSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- German-American Savings Bank v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 1897
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. City of DenverCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
- Pine Tree Lumber Co. v. City of FargoNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. City of HarrisburgCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1894
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.