Maydwell v. City of Louisville
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 94 — 'Action by W. W. Maydwell, and Others against the City of Louisville, to Enjoin the Collection of a Tax for Sprinkling Streets of the City.
Read the full summary
Case 94 — 'Action by W. W. Maydwell, and Others against the City of Louisville, to Enjoin the Collection of a Tax for Sprinkling Streets of the City. APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, CHANCERY DIVISION Judgment for Defendant and Plaintiffs Appeal. 1. The levy of a tax for sprinkling streets is valid, because for a public or governmental purpose. 2. The contract made by the board of public works and approved by the general council, was a proper exercise of the powers vested in them. AUTHORITIES CITED. Clark v. Louisville, 90 Ky., 520; City of Dayton v. Bellevue Water Co., &c., 20 R., 104;…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion op the court by
JUDGE BARKER
Appirming.
The appellants, who are citizens and taxpayers of Louisville, Ky. (a city of the first class), instituted this action for the purpose of enjoining the collection and disbursement of a tax of three cents on each $100 worth of taxable property for the purpose of sprinkling the streets of the city. They claim the sprinkling of the streets is not a public purpose, and that, therefore, so much of the ordinance as provides for the tax is unconstitutional and void. This is the question involved in this litigation.
Section 171 of the Constitution provides:…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Clark v. Louisville Water Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1890
- City of Louisville v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1864
3Cited by6 opinions
- Nourse v. City of RussellvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935
- Kippes v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- Hershberg v. City of BarbourvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Browder v. City of HendersonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1919
- McLeod v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.