Cushing v. Petrie

• Citation: 166 S.W. 848,179 Mo.App. 326
• Parties: F. J. CUSHING, Appellant, v. W. A. PETRIE et al, Respondents
• Decision Date: 04 May 1914
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas

166 S.W. 848

179 Mo.App. 326

F. J. CUSHING, Appellant, v. W. A. PETRIE et al, Respondents

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

May 4, 1914

Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.--Hon. Chas. H. Mayer, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

Spencer & Landis for appellant.

W. A Petrie pro se and John S. Boyer for respondents.

OPINION

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff's action is to enforce the lien of a special tax bill issued by the city of St. Joseph, a city of the second class. The judgment in the trial court was against the validity of the bill.

The bill was issued for street paving as authorized by the laws of 1903, page 60. It is provided in section 6, of that act that the board of public works of its own motion, or on petition of "a majority in front feet of the resident real estate property owners", may propose an ordinance for the paving and shall advertise for five days in the official paper notice to all persons interested, of the time and place when and where the board will hear objections to the proposed ordinance. "And if the board shall overrule such objections, then the matter shall be continued for fifteen days, and within that time the owners of a majority of front feet, . . . shall have the right to select, in writing, any material they desire to be used in making said improvement, and such selection shall be embraced in the ordinance. . . ."

It seems that a majority in front feet of property owners filed with the board on the 19th of December, 1907 a petition for the paving and, though not required by the statute, named the material they desired. It appears that no action was taken on this, but that on the following 28th of May, 1908 the board of its own motion, ordered a proposed ordinance, with plans and specifications for the paving, and directed that five days published notice for objections be given, and this was done. Then, on the 4th of June thereafter, the board met and overruled the objections made and continued the matter for fifteen days for the selection of the paving material by the property owners as required by the statute. Then, on the same day (June 4th) the board received from some one (it not appearing who) the petition for the paving which had been presented in the first instance, in December, 1907 and on June 8th ordered it refiled. Thereupon, on the same day, (June 8th) the board made a finding that within fifteen days granted, within which property owners might select, in writing, the material with which said improvement should be made had been filed by a majority in front feet of the resident real estate owners. The trial court found that these defendants had no knowledge of the refiling the petition and that there was no evidence that any petitioner ever...