City of Ferguson v. Steffen

Decision Date10 January 1928
Docket NumberNo. 20019.,20019.
Citation300 S.W. 1039
PartiesCITY OF FERGUSON, to Use of UNITED CONST. CO., v. STEFFEN et ux.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; John W. McElhinny, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by the City of Ferguson, to the use of the United Construction Company, against Christian J. Steffen and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Louis H. Steffen, of St. Louis, for appellants.

Kinealy & Kinealy, of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, C.

This is an action on three special tax bills, for $100.44 against lot No. 9, $100.44 against lot No. 10, and $105.07 against lot No. 11, in block 2 of Randolph Place, in the city of Ferguson. Defendants are the owners of the lots. Ferguson is a city of the fourth class. The tax bills were issued to cover assessments against said lots for the construction of sewers and a septic tank in sanitary sewer district No. 6. The court below gave judgment in favor of plaintiff, charging said] tax bills as special liens against said lots, and ordering the lots sold to pay same. The judgment charges against lot No. 9 the sum of $170.70, against lot No. 10 the sum of $170.70, and against lot No. 11 the sum of $175.37 including interest. From this judgment the defendants appeal.

On March 29, 1921, Ordinance No. 902, establishing the boundaries of sanitary sewer district No. 6, and defining the area subject to special assessments, for the construction of sewers and a septic tank therein, was passed by the board of aldermen. Afterwards, on the same clay, Ordinance No. 903 was passed, which, after declaring the necessity for the construction of a system of sewers and a septic tank for sanitary purposes in said sanitary sewer district No. 6, provides as follows:

"There shall be a system of sewers and a septic tank therefor constructed in sewer district No. 6 of the city of Ferguson, and the mayor of the city is hereby authorized and requested to at once prepare and submit to the board of aldermen plans and specifications and an estimate of the cost of doing said work, setting out in detail the location of said sewers and said septic tank, the method of the construction of said sewers and septic tank, and the material of which said sewers and said septic tank should be constructed, and to submit to the board of aldermen an estimate of the cost of building said sewers and said septic tank."

On March 31, 1921, Ordinance No. 904 defining the location, etc., of the sewers and septic tank to be constructed in said sanitary sewer district No. 6, and adopting and approving the plans and specifications therefor and the estimate of the cost thereof, was passed. On the same day, previous to the passage of said ordinance, the mayor, who was an engineer, prepared and filed an estimate of the cost of said work. He had, on January 25, 1921, prepared and filed plans and specifications on which this estimate was based. These plans and specifications were prepared and tiled under a set of ordinances enacted for the construction of sewers and a septic tank in said sanitary sewer district No. 6, which ordinances were repealed by Ordinance No. 901 on March 29, 1921.

Ordinance No. 905, authorizing the mayor to enter into a written contract with the United Construction Company for the construction of sewers and a septic tank in said sanitary sewer district No. 6, in accordance with the plans and specifications therefor, as previously adopted and approved, at a price deemed reasonable by the board and fixed in said ordinance, was passed on March 31, 1921. The contract as prescribed by this ordinance was executed on April 4, 1921. Upon the completion of the work under this contract the tax bills sued on were duly issued.

The defendants insist here that the tax bills sued on are invalid, because the requirements of section 8510, Revised Statutes 1919, were not complied with in several respects designated. It is manifest, however, that this section has no application to proceedings for the construction of sewers, It relates only to proceedings for the improvement of "any street, avenue, alley, or other highway, or any part thereof, within the limits of the city." The only provisions of the statute having any application to the construction of district sewers in cities of the fourth class, so far as we are advised, are contained in sections 8483 and 8506.

Section 8483 provides that district sewers shall be established within the limits of the districts to be prescribed by ordinance, that the board of aldermen shall cause sewers to be constructed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Lucas v. Murphy
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 25, 1941
    ... ...          Appeal ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Eugene L ... Padberg, Judge ...           ... Reversed and ... S.W.2d 561; Johnson v. Underwood, 324 Mo. 578, 24 ... S.W.2d 133; City of Ferguson to Use of United Const. Co ... v. Steffen, 300 S.W. 1039; Aetna Ins. Co. v ... O'Malley, 343 ... ...
  • Jennings v. Jennings
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 1930
    ... ... constitutional point in the case. [First National Bank v ... Foster, 271 S.W. 536; City case. [First National Bank v ... Foster, 271 S.W. 536; City of Ferguson case. [First National Bank v ... Foster, 271 S.W. 536; City of Ferguson v ... Steffen ... ...
  • Lucas v. Murphy
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1941
    ...Dist. No. 1, Macon County, v. Goodson, 14 S.W. (2d) 561; Johnson v. Underwood, 324 Mo. 578, 24 S.W. (2d) 133; City of Ferguson to Use of United Const. Co. v. Steffen, 300 S.W. 1039; Aetna Ins. Co. v. O'Malley, 343 Mo. 1232, 124 S.W. (2d) 1164. (4) Control of a corporation is vested in the b......
  • Rector v. Consolidated School Dist. No. 3
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 3, 1933
    ...be raised now. Troeger v. Roberts, 284 Mo. 363, 223 S. W. 796; Swanson v. Bradshaw (Mo. App.) 187 S. W. 268; City of Ferguson, etc., v. Steffen et ux. (Mo. App.) 300 S. W. 1039. But even if the case had been tried on this theory now urged for the first time, still, as the funds provided wer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT