Aull v. City of Lexington
| Decision Date | 31 July 1853 |
| Citation | 18 Mo. 401 |
| Parties | AULL, Defendant in Error, v. THE CITY OF LEXINGTON, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A city ordinance, giving the board of health a general supervision over the health of the city, was held to include the power to rent a building to be used as a hospital, to protect the city from the infection of cholera.
Error to Lafayette Circuit Court.
Troxell, for plaintiff in error.
Hicks, for defendant in error.
1. The corporate authorities of the city of Lexington passed an ordinance on the 18th June, 1851, by which certain physicians named in the ordinance were constituted a board of health. The board was authorized to appoint a committee who should make an examination of the city and report the result of such examination to the board. The committee was vested with authority to cause the removal of nuisances, and provision was made for the recovery of the expenses of such removal, where the owners of the property failed to remove them themselves.
The duty of the board of health is thus summarily stated in the ordinance: “It shall be the duty of the board of health to exercise a general supervision over the health of the city, and from time to time make such report to the mayor and city council as they may deem necessary; and said board are hereby vested with all power necessary to carry the provisions of this ordinance into effect.” This clause is the only one in the ordinance, except that which authorizes the appointment of a committee, in which any power is expressly conferred upon the board.
The power of “general supervision over the health of the city,” is very indefinite, and when it is found to be the principal power conferred upon a board of health, it is evident that the council of the city designed to comprehend more than a mere authority to examine into the condition of the health of the city, and advise the measures necessary for its preservation. The power is such, that the council thought it requisite to invest the board will all power necessary to carry it, as the principal clause of the ordinance, into effect. The power is intended to be an active, efficient power, to be exercised for the public good, and in its scope it reaches to whatever may be necessary to the preservation of the public health. To limit it to devising measures which are to be reported to the council, would be inconsistent with the design of granting powers to carry the ordinance into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shidler v. York Cnty.
...County, 28 Mo. 586;Garrett v. Board of Commissioners, 92 Ind. 518;Town of Knightstown v. Homer, 36 Ind. App. 139, 75 N. E. 13;Aull v. City of Lexington, 18 Mo. 401;Hawthorne v. Board of County Commissioners, 79 Kan. 295, 99 Pac. 598. As we view the record in this case, the defendant was lia......
-
Shidler v. York County
...28 Mo. 586; Garrett v. Board of Commissioners, 92 Ind. 518; Town of Knightstown v. Homer, 36 Ind.App. 139, 75 N.E. 13; Aull v. City of Lexington, 18 Mo. 401; Hawthorne v. Board of County Commissioners, 79 295, 99 P. 598. As we view the record in this case, the defendant was liable to Doctor......
-
Woolfolk v. Randolph Cnty.
...if not specifically laid down in the act, are necessarily implied. Unless the mode is given the courts use their discretion. Aull v. City of Lexington, 18 Mo. 401; Page v. St. Louis, 20 Mo. 136. The power given by Revised Statutes, section 5358, to appoint an agent applies to these cases, a......
-
Waters v. Townsend
... ... Appellee, ... J. A. Townsend, was the owner of a house and lot in the city ... of Hot Springs. The board of health of said city, composed of ... W. W. Waters and other ... necessary to effect the purpose for which the board was ... created. Aull v. City of Lexington, 18 Mo ... 401. Within the limitations named, a discretion is given the ... ...