Home/Court of Appeals of Kentucky/Long v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.

Long v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.

151 S.W. 6, 151 Ky. 1, 1912 Ky. LEXIS 737
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedNovember 29, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 151 S.W. 6 (Long v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Long v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 151 S.W. 6, 151 Ky. 1, 1912 Ky. LEXIS 737 (Ky. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

[2]*2Opinion op the Court by

Judge Lassing

Eeversing.

By an ordinance, approved April 7, 1910, the city council of Louisville ordered the original construction of Bayly Avenue from Frankfort Avenue to Center Avenue extended, and directed that “said work should be done at the cost of the owners of the ground on the east side of Bayly Avenue from Frankfort Avenue to the center line of Center Avenue extended and extending back to a line midway between Bayly Avenue and a private way, known as Birckwood Avenue; and on the west side of Bayly Avenue to the center line of Center Avenue extended and extending to the line midway between Bayly and Ellwanger Avenues.” On May 16 following, a contract for the original construction of this street was awarded to the Barber Asphalt Paving Company. On July 15, and before the work was begun on the contract, George W. Long purchased of Nancy Jane Birch a tract of land lying, in part, within the zone affected by this improvement, said property being shown on the accompanying map by the letters x, y, v, z. ■

Work was begun shortly thereafter on the. contract, and it was completed early in October. Immediately upon its completion, apportionment of the cost was made and warrants therefor were, by the .City of Louisville, issued and placed in the hands of the contractor. In apportioning the cost, the city followed the provisions of the ordinance fixing the assessment district. The eastern boundary of the assessment district is evidenced by the dotted lines A-B, and the western boundary, by the dotted lines C-D. Conceiving that the apportionment was inequitable and unjust, George W. Long and certain other property holders declined to pay the warrants issued' against their property. The contractor instituted suit, in which it sought to have their property subjected in satisfaction of the warrants. In his answer, the defendant, Long, resisted payment upon three grounds: First, that the ordinance was invalid, because the provisions of sections 2832 and 2833, Kentucky Statutes, had not been followed; second, because council erred in fixing the east line of the assessment district a greater distance from Bayly Avenue than the western boundary line of said district was situated from said avenue; and third, because certain property within the zone of the improvement was entirely omitted from assessment» He also [4]*4made Ms answer a cross-petition against Ms vendor, Nancy Jane Birch, and pleaded as. to her that, inasmuch as the improvement had been directed and the contract therefor let prior to his purchase of the property, under his contract with her she was answerable on her warranty for any assessment which should be made against his property, and sought to have her required to pay such assessment as the court should, upon final hearing, hold his property answerable for. Issue was joined, proof taken, and upon final hearing the chancellor was of opinion that there was no merit in these respective contentions of the defendant, Long, and judgment was entered in accordance with the prayer of the petition, and dismissing his cross-petition. Long appeals and seeks a reversal both as to the validity of the ordinance and the apportionment warrant issued against his property, and the finding’ of the chancellor against him on his cross-petition against Nancy Jane Birch.

[3]

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

Related

Breslin v. Gray
193 S.W.2d 143 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1946)
Theobald v. Board of Com'rs of Buechel Water Dist.
157 S.W.2d 285 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1941)
Vernon v. George M. Eady Co., Inc.
56 S.W.2d 552 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1933)
Bailey v. Levy
104 So. 415 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Miller v. L. R. Figg Co.
194 S.W. 566 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1917)
Lindenberger v. Rowland
166 S.W. 242 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1914)
Richards v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.
161 S.W. 1105 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1914)
Cave Hill Cemetery Co. v. Gosnell
161 S.W. 980 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
151 S.W. 6, 151 Ky. 1, 1912 Ky. LEXIS 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-barber-asphalt-paving-co-kyctapp-1912.