Heman v. McLaren

Decision Date31 January 1888
Citation28 Mo.App. 654
PartiesWILLIAM HEMAN, Respondent, v. CHARLES MCLAREN, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, HON. DANIEL DILLON, Judge.

Reversed.

ROBERT L. MCLAREN, for the appellant: City v. Stoddard, 15 Mo.App. 179.

H. M. WILCOX and GEO. P. SMITH, for the respondent: Ess v. Bouton, 64 Mo. 105; Stifel v. Dougherty, 6 Mo.App. 441; Waud v. Green, 7 Mo.App. 82; Seibert v. Tiffany, 8 Mo.App. 33; Mauro v. Buffington, 26 Mo. 184; Williams v. Payne, 80 Mo. 409; Tackett v. Vogler, 85 Mo. 480.

OPINION

ROMBAUER, J.

In conformity with our ruling in the case of Eyerman v. Payne (28 Mo.App. 72), the judgment in this case must be reversed. The suit is founded on a special tax bill issued for work done in paving an alley, and the tax bill, instead of being countersigned by the comptroller, is countersigned thus: " " " Fred. Gabel, Deputy Comptroller. " In Eyerman v. Payne, we have stated our reasons in full, showing that, under the decisions in this state in analogous cases, no recovery can be had on a special tax bill thus countersigned.

All the judges concurring, the judgment is reversed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Granite Bituminous Paving Company v. McManus
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 6, 1910
    ...because the defendant has a right to know where to pay the bill. Amended Charter, sec. 24; Eyermann v. Payne, 28 Mo.App. 72; Heman v. McLaran, 28 Mo.App. 654; St. Joseph Forsee, 115 Mo.App. 510. (5) Section 24 of the amended charter is mandatory that "in every such taxbill there shall be de......
  • Granite Bituminous Paving Company v. McManus
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1912
    ...as required by sec. 24, art. 6, of the charter. Stifel v. Cooperage Co., 38 Mo.App. 340; Eyerman v. Payne, 28 Mo.App. 78; Herman v. McLauren, 28 Mo.App. 654; Hopkins Scott, 86 Mo. 140; Keily v. Oppenheim, 55 Mo. 376; Leach v. Cargill, 60 Mo. 317; Rose v. Trestrail, 62 Mo.App. 355; Corporati......
  • Parker-Washington Company v. Cole
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 11, 1909
    ...because the defendant has a right to know where to pay the bill. Sec. 24 of Amended Charter; Eyermann v. Payne, 28 Mo.App. 72; Heman v. McLaran, 28 Mo.App. 654; St. v. Forsee, 115 Mo.App. 510. (3) Section 24 of the amended charter is mandatory that "in every such taxbill there shall be desi......

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