Taylor v. City of Jackson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Cape Girardeau Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry O. Ril-ey, Judge. (1) The defendant is not liable in damages for reducing the surface of Kate street along the south end of plaintiff’s lot, because the work was not done by virtue of an ordinance. Maudlin v. City of Trenton, 67 Mo. App. 455; Gehling v. St. Joseph, 49 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Cape Girardeau Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry O. Ril-ey, Judge. (1) The defendant is not liable in damages for reducing the surface of Kate street along the south end of plaintiff’s lot, because the work was not done by virtue of an ordinance. Maudlin v. City of Trenton, 67 Mo. App. 455; Gehling v. St. Joseph, 49 Mo. App. 432; Werth v. Springfield, 78 Mo. 109. This is true, even though the work was done under the supervision of a committee appointed by the board of aldermen of the city. Thompson v. Boonville, 61 Mo. 282. Beatty v. St. Joseph, 57 Mo. App. 251. (2) The court…
1Opinion of the CourtBigg'S, J.
The defendant is a city of the fourth class. Section 96 of the act of the legislature passed April 11, 1895 (Laws of 1895, page 81), conferred on the board of aider-men of such cities the power to pass ordinances for the opening and improvement of streets and providing that the damages sustained by any property owner by reason thereof should be ascertained in like manner as provided in the same act relating to compensation for private property taken for public use, that is by the appointment of commissioners to assess the damages, etc. The plaintiff, Lizzie Taylor, the wife of her…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Eyerman v. SheehanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Cross v. City of KansasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Vaile v. City of IndependenceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- Village of Salem v. CoffeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905