City of Burlington v. Palmer
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Des Moines Circuit Court. Action- to recover a special tax assessed for macadamizing a street. There was a judgment in the circuit court for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. The facts of the case appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Beck. Ch. J.
I. The facts disclosed by the pleadings and evidence upon which plaintiff bases its right to recover in this action are these: The city, for the purpose of changing the course of a creek crossing Valley street, caused a double sewer to be constructed from the creek down that street to the river, thus conducting the water of the creek to the river through the sewer. Valley street, before the work was commenced, was in good condition, having been before well macadamized. In order to construct the sewer, it *682became necessary to take up the macadamizing of the street, except the parts…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Whiting v. Mayor & Aldermen of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Himmelmann v. SpanagelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by6 opinions
- City of Chickasha v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- In re Shilshole AvenueWashington Supreme Court · 1915
- Rawlins v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Ashman v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
- Cartan & Jeffrey v. Wm. Tackaberry Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.