Miners' Bank v. Clark
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Ron. David E. Blair, Judge. (1) The work to be done, that is in this case, the space to be covered with macadam, must be specified; not only the length hut the width and when it is specified it must be done as specified. If a less space than the contract calls for is actually covered by the contractor the tax bills are void. City v. Etterson, 120 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Ron. David E. Blair, Judge. (1) The work to be done, that is in this case, the space to be covered with macadam, must be specified; not only the length hut the width and when it is specified it must be done as specified. If a less space than the contract calls for is actually covered by the contractor the tax bills are void. City v. Etterson, 120 Mo. App. 215; Grading Co. v. Holden, 32 Mo. .App. 490; Cole v. Shrinka,-105 Mo. 303; Brady v. St. J o-seph, 84 Mo. App. 399; Kansas City v. O ’Conner, 8 Mo. App. 655; West v. Porter, 89 Mo. App. 150; Louisiana v.…
1Opinion of the Court
"WILLIAMS, C.
"This is a suit upon eight special tax bills issued by the city of Joplin, a city of the third class, to the contractor for grading and macadamizing the roadway portion of Fifth street, from the east line of School street to the west line of Spring Suit on Tax Bills, Park Addition, in said city. The tax bills were sold and assigned by the contractor to the plaintiff bank, respondent herein. Trial was had in Division Two of the circuit court of Jasper county before the court, without a jury, resulting in a judgment in favor-of plaintiff on each of said tax bills, from which…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- State v. JulowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Hamman v. Central Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. UllmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- State ex rel. Rose v. JobSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- City of Springfield v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- State Ex Inf. Atty. Gen. v. HedrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
- Thompson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- State ex rel. Moberly Special Road District v. BurtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1916
- City of Moberly v. HoganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1927
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.