Shumate v. Heman

181 U.S. 402, 21 S. Ct. 645, 45 L. Ed. 922, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1375
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 29, 1901
Docket550
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 181 U.S. 402 (Shumate v. Heman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shumate v. Heman, 181 U.S. 402, 21 S. Ct. 645, 45 L. Ed. 922, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1375 (1901).

Opinions

Mb. Justice Shiras

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit brought in the Circuit Court of the city of St. Louis by August Neman to enforce payment of a special tax bill issued in his favor by that city for the construction' of a sewer in what is called Euclid avenue sewer district. The plaintiff recovered a judgment, and the defendants, who were owners of property assessed for the cost of making said sewer, appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, the case being reported as Heman v. Allen, 156 Mo. 534; and after such affirmance the defendant brought the case to this court by writ of error.

The only question which is open to our consideration upon this record is the contention of the plaintiff in error, that the provisions of the charter of the city of St. Louis, the ordinances of the municipal assembly, the contract with the defendant in error made thereunder, and the assessment against the property of the plaintiff in error for the cost of the construction of said sewer, were null, void and of no effect, for the reason that they were repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the 'Constitution of the United States, as construed and applied in-the case of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269.

This contention has been considered and determined, under a similar state of facts, by this court, in the recent case of French v. The Barber Asphalt Paving Company, ante, 324, in error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, and upon the authority of that case the judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is

Affirmed.

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

Related

(PC)Williams v. Fox
E.D. California, 2020
Bung's Bar & Grille, Inc. v. TP. COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
502 A.2d 1198 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1985)
Laskey v. Hilty
107 N.E.2d 899 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1951)
Palmer v. Mayor and Board of Aldermen
197 So. 697 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1940)
Donaldson's Heirs v. City of New Orleans
118 So. 134 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1927)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Southern Roads Co.
290 S.W. 320 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1927)
Lansdown v. Kierns
260 S.W. 88 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1924)
McMurry v. Kansas City
223 S.W. 615 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1920)
Hancock v. City of Muskogee
250 U.S. 454 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Vogt v. City of Oakdale
179 S.W. 1037 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1915)
Lyon v. Mayor C.C. of Hyattsville
93 A. 919 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1915)
Anderson v. City of Ocala
64 So. 775 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1914)
City of Shreveport v. Shreveport Traction Co.
64 So. 414 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1914)
McGhee v. Walsh
155 S.W. 445 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Block v. Patrick
1913 OK 87 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Lanham & Sons Co. v. City of Rome
71 S.E. 770 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1911)
City of Shreveport v. Kansas City, S. & G. Ry. Co.
51 So. 648 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1910)
City of Perry v. Davis & Younger
1907 OK 201 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Wilzinski v. City of Greenville
85 Miss. 393 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1904)
Kettle v. City of Dallas
80 S.W. 874 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
181 U.S. 402, 21 S. Ct. 645, 45 L. Ed. 922, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shumate-v-heman-scotus-1901.