City of Fayette v. Rich

• Decision Date: 05 November 1906
• Citation: 122 Mo. App. 145,99 S.W. 8
• Parties: CITY OF FAYETTE ex rel. CREWS et al. v. RICH.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

99 S.W. 8

122 Mo. App. 145

CITY OF FAYETTE ex rel. CREWS et al. v. RICH.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 5, 1906.

Rehearing Denied January 14, 1907.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALKS—PETITION—SUFFICIENCY.

A petition for the condemnation of a sidewalk and the laying of a new one on a designated lot is not defective for failing to locate the sidewalk in any particular place, the municipal authorities understanding what the petitioners desired in view of the existence of the defective sidewalk on the lot.

2. SAME.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 5989, authorizing the board of aldermen of cities of the fourth class to provide for the construction of sidewalks on petition of citizens therefor, a petition by citizens for the condemnation of a sidewalk on a designated lot, and the laying of a new one thereon, need not state the kind of walk to be constructed, nor the material of which it is to be constructed, nor the length or width thereof.

3. SAME — PLANS — OFFICER EMPOWERED TO MAKE.

Rev. St. 1899, § 5907, authorizing the mayor to appoint such officers as he may by ordinance be authorized to appoint, and section 5985, authorizing the letting of contracts for the construction of sidewalks to the lowest bidder on plans and specifications filed by the city engineer or other officer designated by the board of aldermen, though authorizing the creation of the office of city engineer, empowers the aldermen to determine what officer shall make the plans and specifications and estimates for the construction of a sidewalk.

4. SAME.

Rev. St. 1899, § 5985, provides that the contract for the construction of sidewalks shall be let to the lowest bidder, on plans and specifications filed therefor by the city engineer, or other officer designated by the city council. The plans, specifications, and estimate of the cost for the construction of a sidewalk were made by the mayor and two aldermen, constituting a committee appointed by the council. Held, that though the performance of the duty by any one of the three would be a compliance with the statute, the performance of the duty by all of the committee would not render the plans and specifications and estimate invalid.

5. SAME—CONTRACTS—LETTING — AUTHORITY OF COUNCIL.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 5989, authorizing the letting of a contract for the construction of sidewalks to the lowest bidder on plans and specifications filed therefor, the city council must let the contract, but it may direct a committee to advertise for bids, such act not being legislative.

6. SAME—CONSTRUCTION BY CITY.

Rev. St. 1899, § 5992, provides that where there are no bidders for the construction of sidewalks, the city may proceed to construct the same at its own expense. A city council ordered the construction of a sidewalk. Its committee reported that there were no bidders for the work. The council directed that the committee do the work at the expense of the city. The committee constructed the work in accordance with the plans and specifications. The council approved the acts of the committee, accepted the walk, and ordered the assessment. Held, that the acts of the council were valid, and the tax bills issued enforceable.

7. SAME—TAX BILLS—AMENDMENTS — STATUTORY AUTHORITY.

Rev. St. 1899, § 5950, authorizes the city authorities to relevy and reassess any tax for improvements. A sidewalk was built by a committee of the council. The ordinance directing the issuance of the tax bills directed that the same should be made in favor of the city. Held, that the council was authorized to correct the ordinance by the adoption of a subsequent ordinance, authorizing the levy of special assessments in favor of the committee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Howard County; A. H. Waller, Judge.

Action by the city of Fayette, on the relation of R. L. Crews and others, against Mary Rich. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. F. Johnson, for appellant. R. M. Bagby and A. W. Walker, for respondents.

BROADDUS, P. J.

This is a suit upon a tax bill for street improvement. The plaintiff is a city of the fourth class and the defendant is the owner of lot No. 95 in said city. The work consisted in renewing the sidewalk in front of said lot, the former having been condemned by the city council. The proceedings leading up to the work of construction were as follows: The petition for the condemnation of the old sidewalk and the laying of the new locate both as being on lot No. 95. It is admitted that the petition was signed by the required number of the citizens of the city. A committee appointed by the council made the following report:

"We, the improvement committee, recommend the construction of a granitoid side-walk as follows:

"Plans and Specifications.

"Granitoid walk to be 41 1/6 feet long by 11 feet wide to be finished to the gutter; said walk is to be a uniform slant from the walk in front of lot No. 94 to that being constructed in front of lot No. 90, and practically the same slope as said walk toward the gutter. Excavate ground 1 foot below the top of the pavement at each end of the walk, and fill in with 5 inches of cinders and tamped as put in. Then put in 4 inches of crushed rock, sand, and cement, composed of 5 parts of rock, and 1 part of sand, and 1 part of Portland cement, to be well tamped. Then to be finished on top with 1 inch of granitoid composed of 1½ parts of crushed white limestone and 1 part of Portland cement.

                           "Estimate of Cost
                   "All material for walk at 12 cents per
                square foot. All labor for putting down walk
                at 8 cents per square foot. Filed the 20th
                day of October, 1904.     R. L. Crews
                                          "W. C. Bell
                                          "S. Smith
                  "L. C. Tolson, City Clerk."
                

On the 20th day of October, also, an ordinance was passed by the council approving of "the plans and specifications and estimate of cost of a granitoid sidewalk on first main cross-street in front of lot No. 95," and instructing the "improvement committee to advertise for bids for said walk, and to let the contract for the construction of the same to the lowest and best bidder according to law," and instructing "the committee in case they receive no bids for said walk, to have the same constructed at the expense of the city, keep an accurate account of the costs thereof, and present the same to the board for assessment." The improvement committee reported to the...