McCormick v. Moore
Decision Date | 29 June 1908 |
Citation | 114 S.W. 40,134 Mo. App. 669 |
Parties | McCORMICK v. MOORE et al. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; John G. Park, Judge.
Action by F. P. McCormick against Patrick Moore and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Harry B. Walker and Ball & Ryland, for appellant. Allen & Allen and James E. Trogdon, for respondents.
Action to enforce the lien of a special tax bill issued by Kansas City in part payment of the cost of building certain district sewers. The validity of the proceedings leading to the issuance of the tax bill was attacked in the answer on a number of grounds, four of which were sustained by the trial court, where, by consent of parties, the cause was tried to the court without the aid of a jury. Judgment for defendants was rendered, and plaintiff appealed.
Proceedings for the improvement were initiated July 9, 1902, by the enactment by the common council of Kansas City of Ordinance No. 20,114, entitled "An Ordinance to Construct Sewer in Sewer District No. 221." This was pursuant to section 10, art. 9, City Charter, which provides, in part: Competitive bidding was invited, and at the time designated the contract was awarded to the Parker-Washington Company as the lowest and best bidder. Afterward the work was completed by the company in substantial compliance with the requirements of the contract, special tax bills were issued, and the one in controversy sold and assigned to plaintiff. One of the defenses sustained by the trial court thus is pleaded in the answer: "Defendants say that there were no specifications for the doing of the work for which the tax bill sued on was issued, nor had there been any prepared or were in existence at the time of the approval of the ordinance by the board of public works, or of its passage by the common council, or of its approval by the mayor, although such specifications are referred to in said Ordinance No. 20,114, as forming an essential part thereof."
Sections of the revised ordinances of the city pleaded and proved as pertinent to this defense are as follows:
"Section 811 [ ]. Advertising for Bids. When any ordinance shall provide for the doing of any work mentioned in the second section of article nine of the city charter, the city engineer shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, provide the necessary plans and specifications, which shall, in cases where a contract must be let to the lowest and best bidder, prescribe a time within which the work shall be finished and the amount of security to be given by the contractor for the performance of the work. As soon as practicable thereafter, and after taking other requisite preliminary steps in case a contract is to be let to the lowest and best bidder, the city engineer shall cause to be published for ten successive days, within the twenty days next preceding the time for opening bids, in the newspaper doing the city printing, or if there be none, in such daily newspaper published in the city as he may select, a notice of the letting of the contract for such work to the lowest and best bidder. Such notice shall state generally the nature of the work to be done, where the plans and specifications thereof may be seen, and the day when bids shall be opened.
These ordinance provisions, to which the force of law must be accorded, clearly require that detailed plans and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kammeyer v. City of Concordia, 38746.
......l.c. 126; Excelsior Springs v. Ettenson, 120 Mo. App. l.c. 223-224, 96 S.W. 703; Thrasher v. City of Kirksville (Mo. Sup.), 204 S.W. 804; McCormick v. Moore, 134 Mo. App. 669, 114 S.W. 40; City of Independence v. Nagle, 134 Mo. App. 601, 114 S.W. 1129; Haegele v. Mallinckrodt, 46 Mo. 577; Kansas ......
-
Boyd v. Kansas City
...have been part of the ordinance itself, as if fully set out therein. [Dickey v. Holmes, 109 Mo.App. 721, 83 S.W. 982; McCormick v. Moore, 134 Mo.App. 669, 114 S.W. 40.] But this was not the case here. We hold, therefore, that girder was put in said bridge by the city in the exercise of its ......
-
Kammeyer v. City of Concordia
......126; Excelsior Springs v. Ettenson, 120 Mo.App. l.c. 223-224, 96 S.W. 703;. Thrasher v. City of Kirksville (Mo. Sup.), 204 S.W. 804; McCormick v. Moore, 134 Mo.App. 669, 114 S.W. 40; City of Independence v. Nagle, 134 Mo.App. 601,. 114 S.W. 1129; Haegele v. Mallinckrodt, 46 Mo. 577;. ......
-
Meyers v. Wood
...324, 325; City of Joplin ex rel. Carthage D. & F. Stone Co. v. Hollingshead, 123 Mo.App. 602, 607, 608, 100 S.W. 506; McCormick v. Moore, 134 Mo.App. 669, 114 S.W. 40; City of St. Joseph to use of Gibson v. Owen, 110 445, 19 S.W. 713; Whitworth v. Webb City, 204 Mo. 579, 597, 103 S.W. 86.] ......