Kiley v. City of Kansas
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Jackson _ Circuit Court. — Hok. Saml. L. Sawyer, Judge. The city had ample power by its charter to define what should be deemed a nuisance, and to abate and remove the same. Laws 1870, p. 333; and it is liable for a failure to exercise this power.
Read the full summary
Error to Jackson _ Circuit Court. — Hok. Saml. L. Sawyer, Judge. The city had ample power by its charter to define what should be deemed a nuisance, and to abate and remove the same. Laws 1870, p. 333; and it is liable for a failure to exercise this power. Wood on Nuisances, § 744. If this wall had been standing in the street and had fallen so as to kill one who was in the street, and one just outside of it, could there be a recovery in one case and not in the other ? Certainly not. The question would be, were these persons killed because of neglect of duty on part of the city, and not, where…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
As the only question in this case arises on a demurrer to the petition which was sustained, we insert the petition at large :
Plaintiff states that defendant is a municipal corporation, created by the laws of the State of Missouri, and that defendant is, and was, at the time of the hereinafter grievance, a populous city; that, by its charter, defendant is empowered to abate all nuisances within the city, that are dangerous to the public, and that the defendant has the *106right and authority to define what constitutes a dangerous public nuisance within its limits; that, by chapter 20 of “An…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bassett v. City of St. JosephSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
3Cited by13 opinions
- Wiggin v. St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- City of Winona v. BotzetCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- Chalkley v. City of RichmondSupreme Court of Virginia · 1891
- Kiley v. City of KansasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Rowe v. RichardsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.