Webb City v. City of Carterville
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. Joseph D. Perkins, Judge. (1) Tbe first use to be made by a city of taxes collected is to maintain its organization and pay its ordinary, necessary running expenses. And the evidence showing the revenue for each year to be insufficient to pay its ordinary current expenses ■to maintain its organization and to pay these hydrant rentals, the contract with plaintiff is void as being in excess of the taxing power of the city. Dillon Mun.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. Joseph D. Perkins, Judge. (1) Tbe first use to be made by a city of taxes collected is to maintain its organization and pay its ordinary, necessary running expenses. And the evidence showing the revenue for each year to be insufficient to pay its ordinary current expenses ■to maintain its organization and to pay these hydrant rentals, the contract with plaintiff is void as being in excess of the taxing power of the city. Dillon Mun. Oorp. (4 Ed.) secs. 89,100, 131, 13'6; Constitution, art. X, sec. 12; Citizen’s Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655;…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, C. J.
This action was commenced in October, 1894, to recover of the city of Carterville, a city of the fourth class under the laws of this State, hydrant rentals under a contract with said city. This is the second appeal in the case. The first will be found reported in 142 Mo. 101.
*131The waterworks were completed May 10, 1890, and the plaintiff commenced furnishing the city with water under its contract on May 20, 1890. This action is to recover the rentals for the following quarterly periods according to section 69 of the ordinance.
Eor the three months beginning July 1, 1892, and ending September 30,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Grant v. City of DavenportSupreme Court of Iowa · 1873
- City of Valparaiso v. GardnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Coy v. City Council of Lyons CitySupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Webb City & Carterville Waterworks Co. v. City of CartervilleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. City of MiamiSupreme Court of Florida · 1942
- Authorizing Issuance of Funding Bonds Ex Rel. Consolidated School District No. 4 v. DaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Lebanon Light & Magnetic Water Co. v. City of LebanonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Hartman v. City of BrunswickMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- State ex rel. Furby v. Continental Zinc Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1917
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.