Legal Opinion

Carlin v. Cavender

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1874PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Appeal from Si. Louis Circuit Court. None of the ordinances specify the time in which the work is to be done, or its dimensions or material. No plans or estimates of the work were prepared by the city engineer, nor were any such plans submitted to or approved by the council. . Unless this is done, the statute expressly declares that the contract shall not be valid. (Sess.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Si. Louis Circuit Court. None of the ordinances specify the time in which the work is to be done, or its dimensions or material. No plans or estimates of the work were prepared by the city engineer, nor were any such plans submitted to or approved by the council. . Unless this is done, the statute expressly declares that the contract shall not be valid. (Sess. Acts 1867, Art. 6, § 16, p. 69 ; State ex rel., Dunn vs. Barlow, 4S Mo., The judgment given is clearly not authorized. It is.a general judgment against the defendant, instead of the property which the statute charges with…

1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge

This was an action on a special tax bill issued by the city engineer of the city of St. Louis, to defray the cost of improving Lucas Avenue in front of the property of the defendant. Two objections were made in the answer; first, that the special ordinance numbered 6540, which directed the work to *288be done was invalid ; and, secondly, that the work was done by the plaintiff after the date fixed by the contract for its completion.

Ordinance 6510, ordering the woi'k to be done, authorized the city engineer to cause Lucas Avenue from Compton Avenue to Ware Avenue to be graded, curbed, guttered,…

2Cited by21 opinions

  1. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. UllmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
  2. Storrie v. CortesTexas Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Galbreath v. NewtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
  4. City of Clinton ex rel. Thornton v. Henry CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  5. Heman v. GilliamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API