Levi v. Coyne

• Decision Date: 29 March 1900
• Citation: 57 S.W. 790
• Parties: LEVI et al. v. COYNE. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

57 S.W. 790

LEVI et al. v. COYNE. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 29, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county, chancery division.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Joseph Coyne against George W. Levi and others to enforce a lien for the cost of a street improvement. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

H. M Lane, for appellants.

M. A D. A. & J. G. Sachs, for appellee.

PAYNTER J.

The general council ordained that the sidewalk on both sides of Chestnut street, between Twentieth and Twenty-Second streets in fron of lots numbered from 2,000 to 2,131, inclusive should be regraded, recurbed, furnished with metal gutters, and repaved with brick pavement. The appellee, Coyne, by a contract with the city, did the work provided for in the ordinance, and in the manner and at the time required by the city.

1. It is contended that the apportionment was erroneously made. There is neither an affirmative plea nor proof that it was not made in accordance with section 2835, Ky. St., which provides that the cost of making sidewalks, including the curbing, whether by original construction or reconstruction, shall be apportioned to the front foot as owned by the parties, respectively, fronting said improvement, except that each corner lot shall pay the cost of its sidewalk intersection. If it could be adjudged from the statement in the record, showing the amount of work done on and material furnished in reconstructing the sidewalk in front of each property owner, that the apportionment was not fixed on that basis, there is neither pleading nor evidence to show that the amount fixed against each property owner complaining is more than it would have been to have calculated it as required by section 2835, Ky. St.

2. It is contended that it was repair work, and not reconstruction. The sidewalk in front of the appellant Levi's property was constructed entirely of new brick, and that in front of the other appellants out of new and old brick, but new sand seems to have been used in laying the brick. The pavement was taken up, the grade changed, and new sand used, and part of the brick used were new ones; but it is contended that because the pavement was not wholly built of new material, it was a repair of the pavement, and not a reconstruction. Webster defines "repair" "to restore to a sound or good state after decay, injury, dilapidation, or partial destruction"; as to repair a house, a wall, or a ship. He defines "reconst...