Legal Opinion

Slusser, Taylor & Co. v. City of Burlington

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided March 22, 1876PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Des Moines District Court. This action is brought for the purpose of obtaining judgment for work and labor performed by plaintiff, in grading and improving the streets of the city. When a statute does not in express terms annul a power given to a corporation under a former act, but confers some right or powers under a new name, and with additional powers, such additional act does not annul the rights given under the former act. (Dill, on Mun.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Des Moines District Court. This action is brought for the purpose of obtaining judgment for work and labor performed by plaintiff, in grading and improving the streets of the city. When a statute does not in express terms annul a power given to a corporation under a former act, but confers some right or powers under a new name, and with additional powers, such additional act does not annul the rights given under the former act. (Dill, on Mun. Coro., § 52; State v. Mobile, 24 Ala., 701; Girard v. Phila., 7 "Wall., 1; Com. v. Worcester, 3 Pick., 474.) Statutes of a general nature do…

1Opinion of the Court

Seevers, Ch. J.

The work was performed under two contracts and on different streets. They will be separately considered.

*380i ooiratAor • of^mniidpai corporation. I. As to tlie Boundary street contract: This contract was not reduced to writing, and it is admitted in the answer that ^ was vel'^al an(l made by a proper committee of defendant, upon the terms and conditions contained a written bid made for the work by the plaintiffs, and which is as follows: “ We, the undersigned, propose to grade Boundary street; the dirt to be taken to the railroad crossing south, a portion north in the hollow on…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Houghton v. C., D. & M. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1877
  2. Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. WolfeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1882
  3. Roswell Drainage Dist. v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1931
  4. Kingsley v. City of BrooklynNew York City Court · 1878

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

Powered by the Exa API