City of New Albany v. Sweeney

13 Ind. 245
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 13 Ind. 245 (City of New Albany v. Sweeney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of New Albany v. Sweeney, 13 Ind. 245 (Ind. 1859).

Opinion

Perkins, J.

Sweeney took a contract for improving a portion of a certain street in the city of New Albany.

T. H. Stotsenburg, for the city. T. L. Smith and T. M. Brown, for the appellee.

The improvement was petitioned for, and the contract for it le't, under the provisions of the general act for the incorporation of cities in this state. One of the lots opposite to which the street was improved was owned by non-residents. The assessment for the improvement against it was not paid, and regular proceedings were had by which the lot was sold to pay the assessment. It failed to bring the amount of.it; and thereupon Sweeney, the contractor, sued the city for the deficiency.

He obtained judgment below.

The judgment cannot be upheld. The charter provides that in all contracts of the character of that involved in this suit, the cost thereof shall be estimated according to the whole length of the street or alley, or the part thereof to be improved, per running foot, and the city shall be liable to the contractor for so much thereof only as is occupied by streets or alleys crossing the same, or by public grounds of the city bordering thereon, and the owners of the lots bordering on such street or alley, or the part thereof to be improved, shall be liable to the contractor for their proportion of the cost, in proportion to the length of the line of the lots bordering thereon, and owned by them.

The charter is a public law of which the contractor was bound to take notice. His contract with the city was made with reference to it.

The contractor, before undertaking the improvement, should have examined the property, and inquired as to the persons, constituting his reliance for payment, and, if he found them an unsatisfactory security, he should have declined to enter into the contract.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs.

Cause remanded, &c.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Winner v. Kelley
65 F.2d 955 (Eighth Circuit, 1933)
Town of Capitol Heights v. Steiner
101 So. 451 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1924)
Morris v. City of Sheridan
167 P. 593 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1917)
Broad v. City of Moscow
99 P. 101 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1908)
City of New Albany v. Conger
47 N.E. 852 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1897)
German-American Savings Bank v. City of Spokane
38 L.R.A. 259 (Washington Supreme Court, 1897)
Board of Commissioners v. Fullen
111 Ind. 410 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Hitchcock v. Galveston
12 F. Cas. 218 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Texas, 1874)
City of Greencastle v. Allen
43 Ind. 347 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)
Newman v. Sylvester
42 Ind. 106 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)
Johnson v. Common Council of Indianapolis
16 Ind. 227 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Ind. 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-albany-v-sweeney-ind-1859.