Seaboard National Bank v. Woesten
Supreme Court of Missouri
Transferred from St. Louis Oourt of Appeals. (1) This section of the ordinance when taken at what it says does not contemplate that any part of the burden of maintenance shall be put upon the property owners, but that they shall pay the cost of reconstruction fairly let, and the city the cost of maintenance; and that both could to the mutual advantage of property owner and city be let at the same time.
Read the full summary
Transferred from St. Louis Oourt of Appeals. (1) This section of the ordinance when taken at what it says does not contemplate that any part of the burden of maintenance shall be put upon the property owners, but that they shall pay the cost of reconstruction fairly let, and the city the cost of maintenance; and that both could to the mutual advantage of property owner and city be let at the same time. Ordinary business contracts are let upon this basis with a view to economy, and why should cities be denied the advantage of such business customs? The plan of letting is eminently just for it…
1Opinion of the CourtMacfarlane, J.
— This is an action to recover the amount of a special tax bill assessed against the property of defendants in favor of the Barber Asphalt Company, and assigned to plaintiff.
The petition charges that the assessment was made pursuant to authority of ordinance number 16,943, approved November 26, 1893, which provides for the reconstruction of Grand avenue, upon which defendants’ said property abuts.
The answer is in the nature of a cross-bill in equity. It sets out in detail the provisions of the charter of the city of St. Louis, the general ordinance providing for the construction and…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Verdin v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. UllmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Warren v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Gibson v. OwensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Morse v. City of West PortSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
3Cited by15 opinions
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. FrenchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Manson v. Wabash Railroad CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1960
- People Ex Rel. North v. . FeatherstonhaughNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Allen v. LabsapSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. MunnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.