Powell v. City of St. Joseph
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Buchanan Court of Common Pleas. I. The plaintiff contends that if the provision of the city charter is constitutional, that it does not authorize the city to charge the cost of macadamizing the street crossings to property which does not adjoin such crossings. The argument is that the city is only authorized to charge the cost of macadamizing the streets to the property adjoining the improvement. This is a misconstruction of the law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Court of Common Pleas. I. The plaintiff contends that if the provision of the city charter is constitutional, that it does not authorize the city to charge the cost of macadamizing the street crossings to property which does not adjoin such crossings. The argument is that the city is only authorized to charge the cost of macadamizing the streets to the property adjoining the improvement. This is a misconstruction of the law. The charter says that the macadamizing done on any street shall be charged to the adjoining property in proportion to its front; that is, such work…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, Judge
This'suit presents the same question raised in the case of City of St. Joseph v. O’Donoghue in a different mode. This was a petition to enjoin the marshal of the city from selling certain lots, by virtue of the act of the legislature of November 21,1857, authorizing the City of St. Joseph to macadamize the streets of said city, and certain ordinances passed by the corporation to carry out the process granted by said act. The question of the constitutionality of this law is brought up by a motion in arrest of judgment.
We make no comments upon the form in which the question is raised, as it is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Farrar v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- City of Excelsior Springs v. EttensonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Dunker v. StiefelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- City of Sedalia v. ColemanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900