Neosho City Water Co. v. City of Neosho
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Barton Circuit Court. — Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. (1) In cases like this, of alleged municipal contracts, based on election and special vote by the people, under a statute, the authority to make them could not exist apart from the expressly voted assent to the contract. The vote and proposition constitute the very charter of authority with its limitations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Barton Circuit Court. — Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. (1) In cases like this, of alleged municipal contracts, based on election and special vote by the people, under a statute, the authority to make them could not exist apart from the expressly voted assent to the contract. The vote and proposition constitute the very charter of authority with its limitations. The right to give or withhold the authority, in the very nature of the case, implies and involves the right and power to impose conditions in the contract made or to be made. And this principle is so immutable that not only…
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.
Action by plaintiff as assignee of S. V. Saleno on a contract entered into between said Saleno and defendant for hydrant rental, by which'the *504defendant was supplied with water, at a stipulated price, from July 1, 1892, to January 1, 1895.
The case was tried' in the- circuit court of Barton county where it had been taken by change of venue from Newton county. As the result of the trial plaintiff recovered judgment in the sum of $8,424.45, from which judgment defendant appealed.
Defendant is a city of the fourth class and by ordinance number 113, approved September 22, 1890, provided for the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Saleno v. City of NeoshoSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- County Court v. GriswoldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Aurora Water Co. v. City of AuroraSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Carroll v. CampbellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- City of St. Louis v. St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. UllmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Tate v. School District No. 11Supreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Sebree v. RosenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1964
- State ex rel. County Attorney v. Des Moines City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Robert J. Boyd Paving & Contracting Co. v. WardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.