Heman v. St. Louis Merchants' Land Improvement Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
2. -: ---The purpose of the ordinance is to afford property owners the opportunity and privilege of doing their own work, and this right should not be capriciously denied them. Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. D. D. Eisher, Judge. The answer fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. There was no evidence tending to prove that defendants had the right to repair the sidewalk.
Read the full summary
2. -: ---The purpose of the ordinance is to afford property owners the opportunity and privilege of doing their own work, and this right should not be capriciously denied them. Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. D. D. Eisher, Judge. The answer fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. There was no evidence tending to prove that defendants had the right to repair the sidewalk. The city has the sole and exclusive control of its streets and is bound to keep the same in proper repair; and said city through its proper officials is the sole judge of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Biggs, J. —
*374STATB~rENT. *373The action is on a special tax bill issued to plaintiffs by the proper officers of the city of St. Louis for work done in repairing a sidewalk in front of premises owned by the defendant. Acting under the orders of the street commissioner the plaintiffs (general contractors) reconstructed the sidewalk *374in question. This is not disputed. The defense is that all the work necessary to put the sidewalk in perfect condition had been previously done by the defendant in compliance with an order of the street commissioner. The plaintiffs asked the court to instruct that under…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Skinker v. HemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- Heman Construction Co. v. O'BrienMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899