Ruecking Construction Co. v. Withnell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Wm. M. Kinsey, Judge. (1) That no cause of action was stated in the first petition was confessed by filing an amended petition. On May 23, 1910, when the ameded petition was filed, the action was barred. Walker v. Railroad, 193 Mo. 474; Bricken v. Cross, 163 Mo. 456. (2) The amended petition constituted a departure.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Wm. M. Kinsey, Judge. (1) That no cause of action was stated in the first petition was confessed by filing an amended petition. On May 23, 1910, when the ameded petition was filed, the action was barred. Walker v. Railroad, 193 Mo. 474; Bricken v. Cross, 163 Mo. 456. (2) The amended petition constituted a departure. The first petition sought to foreclose a lien for special 'assessment created under the charter of 1876, which was' repeated in 1901. The amended petition sought to foreclose the lien for special assessment created by the amendment…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
This is a suit brought by the Ruecking Construction Company in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, in twelve counts on twelve special tax bills issued by said city to the construction company for the paving of Broadway between Osage and Neosho streets, a distance of six blocks. William W. Withnell, the defendant, is the owner of the property against which it is sought to enforce the lien of the tax bills. The first five counts of the petition are against, five lots in City Blocks 2609 lying east of Broadway between Montana and Gasconade streets. The succeeding five counts are *551against…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Houck v. Little River Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Phillip Wagner, Inc. v. LeserSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Gast Realty & Investment Co. v. Schneider Granite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Meier v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- St. Louis & Kansas City Land Co. v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Morris v. GrossTennessee Supreme Court · 1978
- Smith v. DirckxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- Jones v. MORRISTOWN-HAMBLEN HOSPITAL ASS'NCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1979
- Stockholders Investment Co. v. Town of BrooklynSupreme Court of Iowa · 1933
- G. T. Fogle & Co. v. KingWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1948
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.