Scott v. City of Marshall
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. — Ho». Samuel Davis, Judge. (1) The verdict was for the right party; and though there may be some error in the instructions given by the trial court the rights of the respondent were not prejudiced. He failed to make out his case. In no event can the city of Marshall be held in damages upon the allegations of his petition and the evidence offered to sustain them.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. — Ho». Samuel Davis, Judge. (1) The verdict was for the right party; and though there may be some error in the instructions given by the trial court the rights of the respondent were not prejudiced. He failed to make out his case. In no event can the city of Marshall be held in damages upon the allegations of his petition and the evidence offered to sustain them. (2) The power of the board of aldermen of the defendant city to condemn old sidewalks and' order new ones constructed is a legislative power conferred by the statutes. R. S. 1899, secs. 5960, 5989…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
— The plaintiff in 1879 became the owner in fee of lot 85 situate on the north side of East Arrow street in the defendant city, and in that year erected thereon a dwelling house and other improvements. In the same year that he acquired title to the lot he planted a row of maple and elm trees in front of it. These trees were about five feet from his lot line as he then understood its location; but about four and one-half feet from the line as located at the time of the doing of the work complained of. Later on he *181laid down in front of his lot a brick pavement four feet seven inches wide along…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gamble v. PettijhonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Colston v. City of St. JosephMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
3Cited by3 opinions
- Royal v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1921
- Brown v. Town of CarrolltonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Ditzen v. City of KansasSupreme Court of Kansas · 1934