Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Ullman
Decision Date | 23 December 1896 |
Citation | 38 S.W. 458,137 Mo. 543 |
Parties | BARBER ASPHALT PAV. CO. v. ULLMAN. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
2. A special charter of a city declared that the mayor should be presiding officer of the council, and an ordinance passed under such charter provided that all contracts should be awarded by the mayor and city council. Subsequently the city accepted the general charter for cities of its class, which provided (Rev. St. 1879, § 4630) that one of the council should be chosen to preside, and also (section 4816) that all ordinances in force not inconsistent with the new charter should be operative until repealed. An ordinance authorizing the city engineer to advertise for bids for a street improvement provided that all ordinances inconsistent therewith were thereby repealed. A contract was entered into in conformity with the provisions of the ordinance by the engineer, and was duly approved by the council. Held, that the contract could not be impeached on the ground that it had not been approved by the mayor.
3. A contractor guarantied a pavement to be constructed under a contract with a city for five years, agreeing to keep the same in repair during the said period, and at the end thereof to turn the pavement over to the city in good order and condition. Held, not a mere agreement to repair, and therefore objectionable, as imposing upon the property owners assessed for the pavement a burden that should be borne by the city, but an agreement to construct in the first instance a pavement good for five years. Burgess and Gantt, JJ., dissenting.
4. A paving contract which contains an agreement that, after five years, during which time the pavement is to be kept in repair free of cost, the contractor will keep the pavement in repair at a fixed price, to be paid by the city, will not be declared invalid, on the ground that the agreement to repair imposed an additional burden on the property owners assessed for the original improvement, in the absence of anything to show that the bid for the original improvement was increased by the contractor in contemplation of the low price demanded for the repairs.
5. An ordinance authorizing the paving of a street "with Trinidad asphaltum, according to specifications on file in the office of the city engineer," is sufficiently definite as to the material of the proposed improvement.
6. Under Rev. St. 1879, § 4784, relating to the lien attaching under special tax bills for public improvements, a defense that the work was not done in a good and substantial manner, as required by the contract, can be pleaded only by way of reduction of the amount of the bill, when accompanied by a tender of the amount justly due for the work as actually performed
7. Under Rev. St. 1879, § 4784, relating to special tax bills, interest is chargeable thereon at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum if not paid within 30 days from the date of issue.
8. An ordinance authorizing the construction of a pavement, and the resetting of the curb on a certain street, recited that the paving should be done according to specifications in the office of the city engineer, and authorized that officer to have the curbing on such street reset. Held, that the reference in the ordinance to the specifications was a sufficient description of the whole work.
9. Under Rev. St. 1889, § 2168, providing that exceptions may be filed at the time, or during the term at which it is taken, an exception to a ruling striking out a portion of a pleading cannot be brought into a final bill of exceptions filed at a subsequent term, unless it was taken by a bill filed at the term when such ruling became final.
10. A deposition is properly excluded where the witness is personally present at the trial, and it does not appear that its introduction was desired for impeachment, or as showing an admission by the witness.
In banc. Appeal from circuit court, Platte county; W. S. Herndon, Judge.
Action by the Barber Asphalt Paving Company against Benjamin Ullman to recover upon special tax bills issued in payment of public improvements in the city of St. Joseph. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Plaintiff had judgment in the circuit court on two special tax bills for an amount in excess of $2,500. Defendant appealed. The bills were based on an ordinance, approved June 27, 1887, as follows:
The contract for the work on which the special tax is founded is quite long. It contains a mass of particulars that are not relevant, as well as many that are vital, to this litigation. The following is an outline of its principal features, including quotations of the important parts:
The parties named are the plaintiff, as principal and party of the first part, and the city of St. Joseph, as party of the second part. Then follow recitals of the letting to plaintiff as lowest and best bidder under the above-quoted Ordinance No. 280, and a statement of the general scope of the contract:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cape County Savings Bank v. Wilson et al., 21379.
......Sweeney, 283 S.W. 736; State v. Surety Co., 294 S.W. 123; Asphalt Paving Co. v. Ullman, 137 Mo. 543; Reineman v. Larkin, 222 Mo. 156. (2) ......
-
City of Jackson, to Use of Cape County Sav. Bank v. Houck
...... bill. As is said by the court in the case of Asphalt". Paving Co. v. Ullman, 137 Mo. 543, 38 S.W. 458:. . . \xC2"......
-
Cape County Sav. Bank v. Wilson
......Sweeney, 283 S.W. 736; State. v. Surety Co., 294 S.W. 123; Asphalt Paving Co. v. Ullman, 137 Mo. 543; Reineman v. Larkin, 222. Mo. 156. ......
-
Flint v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
...... S.W.2d 1104; Veset v. S.S. Kresge Co., 213 S.W. 165;. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Ullman, 137 Mo. 543, 38. S.W. 458; Schmitz v. St. ......