New England Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. James

77 Mo. App. 616, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 346
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 2, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 77 Mo. App. 616 (New England Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
New England Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. James, 77 Mo. App. 616, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 346 (Mo. Ct. App. 1899).

Opinion

Gill, J.

This is a suit to enforce certain special tax bills for macadamizing a portion of Fourteenth Street in Kansas City. Among other defenses it was claimed that the work was not done and completed within the time required by the ordinance providing for the improvement.

Pursuant to a petition signed by a majority in front feet of the resident property owners, the common council passed an ordinance, approved October 12, 1891, requiring the work to be done. Section 4 of said ordinance provided, “that the work shall be completed within thirty days from the time a contract therefor binds and takes effect, and to be paid for in special tax bills against and upon the lands that may be charged with the costs thereof.” The contract was entered into, was approved, and therefore took effect November 2, 1891. The macadamizing was completed and accepted by the board of public works in.November, 1892, about one year after the contract took effect.

Under this state of facts the ; trial court held the tax bills void, and for the reason that the improvement [619]*619was not completed within the time required by the ordinance above mentioned.

I. If we adhere to the ruling in McQuiddy v. Brannock, 70 Mo. App. 535, then clearly the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed. That case was decided after mature deliberation by two members of this court and again considered on a motion for rehearing. The conclusion there reached is the result of a patient and thorough investigation. Since this case was submitted we have again gone over the matter and can see no reason for receding from the holding there announced.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith, P. J., not sitting; Ellison, J., concurring.

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

Related

Fisher v. L. E. Whitham & Co.
39 S.W.2d 869 (Texas Supreme Court, 1931)
Merine v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.
103 S.W. 508 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Curtice v. Schmidt
101 S.W. 61 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Munn
83 S.W. 1062 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1904)
Heman v. Gilliam
71 S.W. 163 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Ridge
68 S.W. 1043 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
Childers v. Holmes
68 S.W. 1046 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Shoenberg v. Heyer
91 Mo. App. 389 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Neill v. Trans-Atlantic Mortgage Trust Co.
89 Mo. App. 644 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
Winfrey v. Linger
89 Mo. App. 159 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
Ayres v. Schmohl
86 Mo. App. 349 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1900)
Richter v. Merrill
84 Mo. App. 150 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1900)
Neill v. Gates
54 S.W. 460 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 Mo. App. 616, 1899 Mo. App. LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-england-safe-deposit-trust-co-v-james-moctapp-1899.