Kinealy v. Gay
| Decision Date | 13 May 1879 |
| Citation | 7 Mo.App. 203 |
| Parties | MICHAEL KINEALY, Plaintiff in Error, v. EDWARD J. GAY, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Where, under the city charter of 1870, an ordinance for the paving of one street is introduced, with the engineer's estimate of the cost of the work indorsed thereon, and is subsequently amended so as to include the paving of other streets at an increased cost, and no other indorsement is made thereon, there can be no recovery on a special tax-bill issued under such ordinance.
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
E. T. FARISH, for plaintiff in error, cited: Siebert v. Cavender, 3 Mo. App. 421; 56 Mo. 277.
HARRIS BALDWIN, for defendant in error, cited: Wittler v. Cavender, 3 Mo. App. 580; Siebert v. Cavender, 3 Mo. App. 421; Perkinson v. Partridge, 3 Mo. App. 60.
This was an action on a special tax-bill. It appeared on the trial of the cause that the work was done under a city ordinance introduced in May, 1872, as a bill for improving Cass Avenue from Twenty-seventh to O'Fallon Street, and providing for grading, guttering, macadamizing, and curbing the street named in the title, within the boundaries named. On this bill was indorsed an estimate of the city engineer, estimating the cost of the work to the city at $2,300 and the cost to the property-holders $4,400. The bill, before its passage, was amended. Its title was changed so as to read: “An ordinance to improve certain streets in the Second District north of the south line of the Sixth Ward;” and the body of the bill was altered so as to provide for the grading, guttering, macadamizing, and curbing of a very large number of streets (the mere enumeration of them filling a page of closely written foolscap), and appropriating $55,000 for the cost of the work to the city.
It appears that before the passage of the bill, the comptroller certified that there was unappropriated and standing to the credit of the appropriation for streets within the district named $55,000, the sum mentioned in the bill.
The bill as thus amended was passed, and is the bill under which the work sued for was done. No other estimate of the city engineer was indorsed on the bill than the original estimate of $2,300,--indorsed, as already stated, upon the original bill as first introduced, and before it had grown to more than twenty times its original proportions.
The court, sitting as a jury, declared the law to be, that if the work was done under the contract and ordinance introduced, and if the city engineer did not indorse upon the ordinance an estimate of the entire cost of the work...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkinson v. McGrath
...above referred to, and there had been a manifest disregard of the charter provision. In this finding there was no error. Kinealy v. Gay, 7 Mo. App. 203. 2. On the trial, plaintiff offered to prove that, while the work was in progress, defendant wrote to the city engineer, demanding of him t......