City ex rel. Lancaster v. Armstrong
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppéál from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The second ordinance passed in consequence of the agreement with defendant for the right of way, without which the city could not have taken the sewer through his ground. The city availed itself of the agreement, and profited thereby. II. The city had no right to put the sewer on Armstrong’s ground without his consent.
Read the full summary
Jlppéál from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The second ordinance passed in consequence of the agreement with defendant for the right of way, without which the city could not have taken the sewer through his ground. The city availed itself of the agreement, and profited thereby. II. The city had no right to put the sewer on Armstrong’s ground without his consent. It was private property ; there was no alley -through it, and the city was in no condition to condemn it, not having provided by ordinance for opening an alley through it. TTT- The city has no power to condemn private property for…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This was an action on a special tax bill issued by the city engineer, under a sewer contract, to one George Prendergast, and by him assigned to the plaintiff.
The answer set up the invalidity of the ordinances under Avhich this Avork was done, and as a further and special defense stated that the sewer was built across the defendant’s land; that defendant objected to its being constructed there, because he had no use for it, and was unwilling to pay for it, and it was finally agreed that if he would give the city the right of way through his land'to construct the sewer, he should not be called…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Coit v. City of Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1898
- Newman v. City of EmporiaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1884
- Akers v. W. H. Kolkmeyer & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Miller v. AnheuserMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
- Gibson v. ZimmermanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.