Waul v. Green
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. Without proof of an ordinance authorizing the contract, the tax-bill will not support a judgment. — Ilaegéle v. Mallinckrodt, 46 Mo. 577 ; Charter 1871, Art. VIII., sects. 7,. 15 ; Rev. Ord. 1877, pp. 99,101; Sess.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. Without proof of an ordinance authorizing the contract, the tax-bill will not support a judgment. — Ilaegéle v. Mallinckrodt, 46 Mo. 577 ; Charter 1871, Art. VIII., sects. 7,. 15 ; Rev. Ord. 1877, pp. 99,101; Sess. Acts 1866, p. 298 ; Charter 1877, p. 98. . The strict pursuance of the statutory requirement in all its substantial requirements, is a condition precedent to the validity of every local assessment. — Sharp v. Spier, 4 Hill, 76 ; Hevins v. Alhin, 36 Ind. 189 ; Warren v. Grand Haven, 30 Mich. 24 ; Sibley v. Smith, 2 Mich. 486 ; Helbish v. Homer,…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
This action was begun before a justice of the peace, on a special tax-bill. The bill is dated, “ City Engineer’s Office, 11th July, 1877,” and is in the form used before the adoption of the charter of St. Louis now in force, and which went into effect, in contemplation of law, on October 22, 1876. It gives the name of the contractor and of the owner charged, describes the property, sets forth the character of the work and the amount due for the work, refers to the charter and ordinance under which the work was done, and is certified as follows: —
“I hereby certify that the above-mentioned work…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State ex rel. Beach v. SuttonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877
- Stifel v. DoughertyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
3Cited by2 opinions
- Adkins v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1889
- Gallaher v. BartlettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896