Heman v. McLaren

Missouri Court of Appeals

Heman v. McLaren

28 Mo. App. 654, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 44

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 31, 1888·Published

Opinion

Rombauer, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In conformity with our ruling in the case of Eyerman v. Payne (ante, p. 72), the judgment in this case must be reversed. The suit is founded on a special tax bill issued for work done in paving an alley, and the tax bill, instead of being countersigned by the comptroller, is countersigned thus: “Fred. Gabel, Deputy Comptroller .” In Eyerman v. Payne, we have stated our reasons in full, showing that, under the decisions in this state in analogous cases, no recovery can be had on a special tax bill thus countersigned.

All the judges concurring, the judgment is reversed.

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

Rombauer, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In conformity with our ruling in the case of Eyerman v. Payne (ante, p. 72), the judgment in this case must be reversed. The suit is founded on a special tax bill issued for work done in paving an alley, and the tax bill, instead of being countersigned by the comptroller, is countersigned thus: “Fred. Gabel, Deputy Comptroller .” In Eyerman v. Payne, we have stated our reasons in full, showing that, under the decisions in this state in analogous cases, no recovery can be had on a special tax bill thus countersigned.

All the judges concurring, the judgment is reversed.

Heman v. McLaren, 28 Mo. App. 654, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 44 (Mo. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

28 Mo. App. 654 (Heman v. McLaren) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.