Harman v. St. Louis
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. (1) The city of St. Louis having failed to enforce the provisions of the ordinances recited in the petition became an accessory to the injury done to plaintiff and is jointly liable. (2) “An unlawful act may be committed in violation of some express statute.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. (1) The city of St. Louis having failed to enforce the provisions of the ordinances recited in the petition became an accessory to the injury done to plaintiff and is jointly liable. (2) “An unlawful act may be committed in violation of some express statute.” “Where ■any law requires one to do any act for the benefit of another, or to forbear the doing of that which may be to the injury of another, though no action be given in ■express terms by the law for the omission or commission, the general rule of law in all such cases is that the party so injured…
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
This is an action to recover from the city of St. Louis and the other defendants (who are contiguous lot owners to plaintiff) damages caused to him by the erection and continuance of certain frame buildings adjoining his property in violation of the city ordinances, based upon the following petition:
“Now comes Henry Harman, the above named plaintiff, and by leave of court, first had and obtained, files this, his amended petition, in the above entitled cause.
“And for his amended petition plaintiff says that the above named defendant, the city of St. Louis, is a municipal corporation, organized…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Ryan v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Hull v. Roxboro.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Bean v. City of MoberlySupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
- Arnold v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Mehan v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.