Eyerman v. Blaksley
| Decision Date | 30 April 1883 |
| Citation | 78 Mo. 145 |
| Parties | EYERMAN v. BLAKSLEY et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
M. McKeag and P. Mm. Provenchere for appellants.
T. J. Cornelius for respondent.
Plaintiff sued defendants in the circuit court of St. Louis, on nineteen special tax bills issued for the construction of a district sewer in Sidney street sewer district number 3, in the city of St. Louis
Section 22, article 6 of the charter, provides:
Ordinance number 10,717, as approved by the Board of Public Improvements, establishing Sidney street sewer district number 3, was passed by the assembly, and on the 3rd day of May, 1878, approved by the mayor. Ordinance number 10,720, recommended by the Board of Public Improvements, providing for the construction of the sewer in question, was passed by the assembly and approved on the 3rd day of May, 1878. The whole work of constructing the sewer and furnishing the necessary materials was let in one contract, and in advertising for the materials and work the quantity and quality of the articles necessary in its construction were not specified, nor were the articles and work let to the lowest bidder. The sewer in question did not directly connect with a public sewer, but connected with a district sewer which had a direct connection with a public sewer.
Section 25, article 6 of the city charter, provides that “Said tax bill shall be and become a lien on the property charged therewith, and may be collected of the owner of the land, in the name of and by the contractor, as any other claim, in any court of competent jurisdiction, with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum, after thirty days from demand of its payment; and if not paid within six months after such demand, then at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum from the date of said demand.” It also provides that “such certified bill shall in all cases be prima facie evidence that the work and material charged in such bill shall have been furnished, and of the execution of the work, and of the correctness of the rates or prices, amount thereof, and of the liability of the person therein named as the owner of the land charged with such bill to pay the same,” with a proviso, that the party charged may by evidence contradict any fact of which the tax bill is declared prima facie evidence.
On the trial plaintiff, over defendant's objection, introduced the tax bill as evidence, it being admitted that the signatures of the city comptroller and president of the Board of Public Improvements were genuine. It was proved that plaintiff was the owner of the special tax bill sued on, and that demand of payment was made and refused March 15th, 1879.
Defendant offered in evidence ordinances numbers 10717 and 10,720, and ordinance 10,314, establishing the office of commissioner of supplies, and regulating the manner of purchasing all articles needed by the several departments of the city, and also testimony with regard to the recommendation made by the Board of Public Improvements, of the passage of ordinance number 10,720, which will be noticed hereafter.
Plaintiff had judgment in the circuit court, which was affirmed by the court of appeals; and defendants have appealed to this court, and contend that section 25, article 2 of the city charter, is in conflict with section 53, article 4, and section 30, article 2 of the constitution of this State; that ordinance number 10,720 was a nullity, because introduced and passed before ordinance number 10,717 was enacted, and because, when the Board of Public Improvements recommended the construction of the sewer in question, the sewer district had not been established, and because said board did not recommend it as necessary for sanitary and other like purposes; that the sewer in question did not, nor did the ordinance require it to, connect with a public sewer, or some natural course of drainage, and the ordinance was, therefore, of no validity; that the whole work of constructing the sewer and furnishing the materials was let in one contract, when the work and different materials should have been separately advertised, and let to the lowest bidder. We shall notice these points in the order in which we have stated them.
First, as to the alleged conflict between section 25 of the charter and the constitution. Section 53, article 4 of the constitution, prohibits the general assembly from passing any local or special law, “changing the rules of evidence in any judicial proceeding or inquiry before courts, justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, arbitrators or other tribunals, * * .” There are 33 subdivisions of that section, and appellant's counsel have not indicated with which of those subdivisions section 25 of the charter conflicts, but I presume from their objection to the introduction of the tax bill as evidence, that they hold so much of that provision of the charter as makes the tax bill prima facie evidence to be in conflict with the subdivision above quoted. That is an inhibition, not against any change of the rules of evidence, but against a change of the rules of evidence with respect to causes pending when the change is made. That is evidently the meaning of the language. The tax bill for sewerage work was made prima facie evidence by the ordinance of the city before the work in question was undertaken or the district established.
Nor is section 25 of the charter in conflict with section 30, article 2 of the constitution, which declares “that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The substance of that provision has always been part of the organic law of this state, and city ordinances and acts of the general assembly providing for assessments for improvements, similar to the ordinance in question, have been upheld by repeated decisions of this court. In Lockwood v. City of St. Louis,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen v. Baer
...act to be unconstitutional for the reasons claimed. But State v. Tolle, 71 Mo. 645, was cited and expressly approved. (1883) In Eyerman v. Blaksley, 78 Mo. 145, it was contended that section 25, art. 6, of the charter of St. Louis, which made special tax bills prima facie evidence that the ......
-
Jones v. Williams, 6051.
...L. Ed. 485; In re Ashland Emery & C. Co. (D. C.) 229 F. 829; New York v. Jersawit, 263 U. S. 493, 44 S. Ct. 167, 68 L. Ed. 405; Eyerman v. Blaksley, 78 Mo. 145; City of St. Joseph v. Forsee, 110 Mo. App. 237, 84 S. W. 1138; Seaboard Nat. Bank v. Woesten, 176 Mo. 49, 75 S. W. 464; Colby v. C......
-
State ex rel. McKittrick v. Bair
... ... taxes is penalty. St. Francis Levee District v ... Dorroh, 316 Mo. 398; also, 316 Mo. 413; Eyerman v ... Blaksley, 78 Mo. 145; St. Louis to use, etc. v ... Allen, 53 Mo. 44. (5) Interest, costs and commissions ... added for nonpayment of ... ...
-
Owen v. Baer
...unconstitutional for the reasons claimed. But State ex rel. v. Tolle, 71 Mo. 645, was cited, and expressly approved. (1883). In Eyerman v. Blaksley, 78 Mo. 145, it was that section 25 of article 6 of the charter of St. Louis, which made special tax bills prima facie evidence that the work a......