City of Louisville v. Nevin

• Decision Date: 06 December 1894
• Citation: 28 S.W. 499
• Parties: CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. NEVIN.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

28 S.W. 499

CITY OF LOUISVILLE v. NEVIN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 6, 1894

Appeal from Louisville law and equity court.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Joseph Nevin against the city of Louisville. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

H. S Baker, for appellant.

Lane &amp Burnett, for appellee.

PRYOR J.

In the matter of a street improvement in the city of Louisville there was an erroneous apportionment of the burden of payment as between the taxpayers owning property fronting the improvement, and who, by the terms of the city charter, were liable to the contractor. Cooper, one of the lot owners refused to pay, on the ground that the apportionment was wrong, and in a litigation between himself and the contractor, Nevin, this court held that he was improperly charged, and that a part of the sum assessed against him should be paid by the other owners of lots bordering on the improvement. This necessitated another apportionment, that was subsequently made as directed by this court. The city charter provides that the contractor shall have interest from the time the apportionment is made. It then becomes a debt due, and interest runs. Cooper was ready and offered to pay what he justly owed, and therefore was only charged interest from the last apportionment, as well as the other lot owners whose burden had been increased. Nevin, claiming he was entitled to interest from the first apportionment, recovered of the city of Louisville the interest from the first apportionment until the last was made, on the ground that the city, through its council, had committed the error by which this interest was lost to him, and the city is now complaining, and we think rightfully. By an express provision of the charter of the city, if the council had failed to take the proper steps to hold the lot owners liable, the city is not to be responsible, and, if so, we perceive no reason why when the work is complete, a failure to make such an apportionment as the law requires would make the city liable to the contractor for the improvement, or for the interest upon the principal sum from the date of the erroneous apportionment. It was in fact no apportionment, and to hold the city liable for the delay in making the apportionment for either the principal or interest would not only involve the city in interminable litigation, but establish a precedent by which the city...