Anderson v. Holland

• Decision Date: 31 March 1867
• Citation: 40 Mo. 600
• Parties: DAVID ANDERSON, Respondent, v. LEONARD B. HOLLAND, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

40 Mo. 600

DAVID ANDERSON, Respondent,

v.LEONARD B. HOLLAND, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1867.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Peacock & Cornell, for appellant.

Sharp & Broadhead, for respondent.

FAGG, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

By the agreed statement of facts presented, there is but one point for the determination of the court.

Plaintiff sued to recover the sum of $805, paid by him upon an assessment made upon certain leasehold property in the city of St. Louis. The property in question was conveyed by plaintiff to the defendant by deed dated December 1st, 1860. By special ordinance of said city, approved March 31, 1860, a certain kind of pavement was required to be laid upon the street fronting this property. This work, by the charter and ordinances of the city, is made a charge upon the adjoining property, and a special tax is authorized to be assessed thereon in the name of the owner whenever the work is fully completed. The work was not completed nor the assessment made until the 23rd of December, 1860. A certified bill of the assessment was made out against the plaintiff as the owner of the property and payment of the same coerced by legal process.

It is agreed that the deed of lease to the plaintiff contained a provision that the lessees and all persons to whom the leasehold interest should be transferred, should, whilst the owners and holders of said interest pay off and discharge all taxes or assessments to be made by the City of St. Louis, or else said leasehold should become forfeited. This tax was an encumbrance upon the property, and the simple question is whether it attached previous to the conveyance to Holland or not. The amended charter of the city approved January 16, 1860, and entitled “An act supplementary to the several acts incorporating the City of St. Louis,” as well as the general ordinance entitled “Engineer Department,” (Rev. Ord. 352,) contain the provisions regulating the mode of enforcing payment against the property holders in such cases.

We think that this work became a charge upon the property from the date of the assessment and certified tax-bill made out by the city engineer in pursuance of the directions contained in the general ordinance before referred to. This point may be regarded as settled by the former decisions of this court--City of St. Louis to use, &c. v. Oeters, 36 Mo. 456; Same v. Rudolph, Id. 465; Same v. Clemens, Id. 467. In the last case cited it was expressly...