Prior v. Buehler & Cooney Const. Co.
Decision Date | 10 December 1902 |
Citation | 71 S.W. 205,170 Mo. 439 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | PRIOR v. BUEHLER & COONEY CONST. CO. et al. |
Bill by Christian F. Prior against the Buehler & Cooney Construction Company and others to restrain the construction of a city sewer. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is a bill in equity to restrain the construction of the Arsenal street joint district sewer in the city of St. Louis on the grounds, inter alia, that to tax the plaintiff's property for the benefits received by it from the sewer would violate article 14 of the constitution of the United States, and sections 21 and 30 of article 2 and sections 3 and 4 of article 10 of the constitution of Missouri. The circuit court entered judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.
Daniel Dillon, for appellant. Chas. W. Bates, Wm. F. Woerner, and Becker & Donovan, for respondents.
In condensed form the controversy is this: Formerly the charter of St. Louis provided for (1) public sewers, to be constructed "along the principal courses of drainage," and to be paid for out of the general revenue of the city; (2) district sewers, to "be established within the limits of districts to be prescribed by ordinance as approved by the board of public improvements, and so as to connect with a public sewer or some natural course of drainage," and to be paid for by special assessments against all. lots of ground in the sewer district in the proportion that the area of such lots bore to the total area of the district; and (3) private sewers, connecting with public or district sewers, and to be constructed by private persons, and paid for by them. In October, 1901, the people of St. Louis, under the authority conferred upon them by the constitution of the state, amended the charter so as to abolish the charter provisions relating to sewers above referred to, and substituted therefor the following provisions relating to sewers:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flinn v. Gillen
...166 Mo. 417; Dennison v. City of Kansas, 95 Mo. 416; Heman Const. Co. v. Lyon, 277 Mo. 628; Heman v. Allen, 156 Mo. 534; Prior v. Construction Co., 170 Mo. 439; Young v. St. Louis. 47 Mo. 492; Merchant v. Bothwell, 60 Mo. App. 341; Hess Ventilating Co. v. Elevator Co., 280 Mo. 163. (2) The ......
-
Northern P. Ry. Co. v. City of Seattle
... ... People, 170 Ill. 224, 48 N.E. 215 ... In ... Prior v. Construction Company, 170 Mo. 439, 451, 71 ... S.W. 205, 208, the ... ...
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Gainesville
... ... 68 Ind. 562; Indianapolis & V. Ry. Co. v. Capitol Pav. & ... Const. Co., 24 Ind.App. 114, 54 N.E. 1076; Paterson ... & H. R. R. Co. v ... settled. Prior v. Buehler & Conney Const. Co., 170 ... Mo. 439, 71 S.W. 205; Smith v ... ...
-
State ex rel. v. City of St. Louis
...power. Morrow v. Kansas City, 186 Mo. 675; Collins v. Jaicks Co., 279 Mo. 428; In re Birmingham Drainage Dist., 274 Mo. 140; Prior v. Construction Co., 170 Mo. 439; State ex inf. v. Maitland, 296 Mo. 338. (d) The purpose of authorizing large cities to frame, adopt and amend their own charte......