Lamar Water & Electric Light Co. v. City of Lamar
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Barton Circuit Court. — Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. The facts of the case appear in the opinion filed in the first division, May 28, 1894, upon the first hearing. After that ruling, a motion for rehearing was made, which was overruled, one of the judges dissenting. On that dissent, the cause was transferred to the court in banc, and there re-argued.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Barton Circuit Court. — Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. The facts of the case appear in the opinion filed in the first division, May 28, 1894, upon the first hearing. After that ruling, a motion for rehearing was made, which was overruled, one of the judges dissenting. On that dissent, the cause was transferred to the court in banc, and there re-argued. The decision of the court in banc refers for a statement of facts to the divisional opinion which was as follows: “Black, C. J. — This is a suit to collect a balance of $900 due on hydrant rents for the last half of 1891, and $3,000…
1Opinion of the Court
Barclay, J. —
It becomes necessary for the court in lane to decide, for the first time, whether the limitations to taxation, imposed by section 11 of article 10 of the Missouri constitution, apply to a tax levied under section 12 of that article, in a city of the fourth class, for the purpose of supplying the city with water.
It will not be needful to recite the facts out of which the ease arose. They have been already given in the opinion filed while the cause was in the first division (26 S. W. Rep. 1025),which will be published in the official report of the case.
1. The annual tax was held…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Farrar v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Saleno v. City of NeoshoSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Book v. EarlSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Barnard & Co. v. Knox CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State ex rel. Sansone v. WoffordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Harke v. HaaseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- City Council v. Dawson Waterworks Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- O'Neil Engineering Co. v. Incorporated Town of RyanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Aurora Water Co. v. City of AuroraSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Koebel Ex Rel. Koebel v. Tieman Coal & Material Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1935
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.