Morley v. Carpenter

• Decision Date: 14 June 1886
• Citation: 22 Mo.App. 640
• Parties: PATRICK MORLEY, Appellant. v. DAvis CARPENTER, JR., Respondent,
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

22 Mo.App. 640

PATRICK MORLEY, Appellant.

v.DAvis CARPENTER, JR., Respondent,

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Jun. 14, 1886.

APPEAL from Buchanan Circuit Court, HON. JOSEPH P. GRUBB, Judge.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Statement of case by the court.

This was an action upon special tax-bills for the cost of macadamizing done by plaintiff on one of the streets in the city of St. Joseph, assessed against defendant's lots.

The case was tried by the court sitting as a jury upon the following statement of facts:

“For the purposes of this case, the following statement of facts is agreed and entered into by and between the parties hereto:

1. Plaintiff performed the work charged in the petition, under and by virtue of a contract entered into with the city engineer of the city of St. Joseph, in pursuance of and in compliance with the ordinances in plaintiff's said petition set forth.

2. Defendant is the owner of the property, as charged in plaintiff's petition.

3. At a date long prior to the passing of the ordinances, in plaintiff's petition set forth, providing for the re-paving, re-curbing and re-guttering of Sixth street in front of defendant's property, to-wit: on ____ the ____ of ____, the said city, at the request of the owners of the property fronting on said Sixth street, by ordinance, fixed the grade of Sixth street in front of defendant's property, and ordered the curbing, guttering, macadamizing and paving of the same, all of which was duly performed and the cost thereof assessed against the property of defendant and duly paid for. At a date subsequent to the date last aforesaid, to-wit: on the ____ day of ____ the said macadamizing, curbing and guttering being worn and out of repair, the said city council of St. Joseph ordered the same repaired, which was duly done, and the expense thereof charged to the property of the defendant and duly paid by the owner of said property. That, at the date of the passage of the ordinance in plaintiff's petition set out, providing for the re-curbing, re-paving, and re-guttering of said Sixth street, the same was in good condition and repair in front of defendant's property, but said city had, under its own motion, and not upon the request of the property owners fronting on said street, changed the grade of said street and ordered the said paving, curbing, guttering and macadamizing to be torn up and removed, the grade changed, and the re-curbing, re-guttering, re-paving and re-macadamizing charged for by plaintiff to be done. The said macadamizing, guttering,...