Bell v. City of Burlington
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Des Moines District Court, J. D. JSmythe, Judge. The foregoing cases are of a similar character, involving the validity of the same proceedings for special assessment of the cost of a certain sewer, and will be disposed of in a single opinion. The trial court held the assessments invalid, and the city appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtWeaver, J.
Barrett’s addition to the city of Burlington, or so much thereof as is affected by this litigation, consists of a plat four blocks in width north and south and six blocks in length east and west, and lies immediately west of Madison avenue. This avenue is one of the main *609thoroughfares in the southern part of the city, is paved, and has a street ear service. Barrett’s addition is largely occupied as a residence district; but its streets are not yet. paved, and, except as hereinafter indicated, is unsupplied with any public system of sewerage or drainage. The evidence tends to show that nearly…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cone v. City of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1859
- Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. v. LindquistSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Payne v. Village of South SpringfieldIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Camp v. City of DavenportSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Ryder Estate v. City of AltonIllinois Supreme Court · 1898
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. City of CentervilleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1916
- Robertson Lumber Co. v. City of Grand ForksNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1914
- Rood v. City of AmesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
- Dunker v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.