Neenan v. Donoghue

Decision Date31 August 1872
Citation50 Mo. 493
PartiesJOHN NEENAN, Appellant, v. JAMES O. DONOGHUE, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Buchanan Court of Common Pleas.

This was a suit commenced in the Circuit Court of Buchanan county to recover a bill for macadamizing and other improvements done by plaintiff in front of and adjoining property owned by defendant. The work was done by virtue of an alleged contract with the city of St. Joseph, made in pursuance of the charter and ordinances. The petition set forth the charter of the city and ordinances directing the work to be done, and the contract, which contains this clause: “Said work to be paid for when the same is accepted by the board of public works of the city of St. Joseph.”

Woodson, Vineyard & Young and Grubb, for appellant.

Under the charter the officer in charge of the work is the proper party to receive the work and certify to the completion and cost of the same, and the amount chargeable to each lot. And when this is done and the certificate delivered to the contractor, his right to recover is fixed by the charter, and any ordinance or contract in conflict with this section is unauthorized on the part of the city. (See Laws of the City of St. Joseph, Feb. 1865, p. 47, § 5.) Where the proof shows, as in this case, that the work was fully performed according to contract, the mere neglect on the part of two of the board to perform their duty ought not to affect the rights of the plaintiff.

H. K. White, for defendant.

I. The judgment is for the right party. The petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It alleged, in order to show the legality of plaintiff's contract, that “the award for said work was by said city, in accordance with its ordinances then in force, let through its proper authorities to plaintiff.” This states a conclusion of law, not a fact. No ordinances are set forth or referred to which show the manner of letting contracts, nor does the petition declare or the charter show who are the proper authorities. The ordinance set forth gives the engineer power to advertise for proposals for doing the work. The engineer assumes to act as agent for the city in making the contract, but it was awarded by other “proper authorities.” The petition is further defective in not showing any authority given to the engineer to enter into the contract in behalf of the city.

II. The acceptance of the work by the board of public works, although not a condition required by the charter, was one required by the city, and voluntarily assumed by plaintiff. Not being contrary to statute or against public policy, it became a law between the parties, and essential...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Williams v. the Chicago, Santa Fe & California Railway Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 29 Noviembre 1892
    ...such facts may be alleged and a recovery still be had in equity. 2 Story on Equity, 1457a, 1457b; Herrick v. Belknap, 27 Vt. 673; Neenan v. Donoghue, 50 Mo. 493; Yeats Ballentine, 56 Mo. 530." There is no allegation that the balance claimed in the first count was the amount due as found by ......
  • Hoyt v. Buder
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 Febrero 1928
    ...of whether or not he has any interest in it whatsoever. [9 C. J. 586; Enright v. Ford, 106 Mo.App. 705, 80 S.W. 291; Neenan v. Donoghue, 50 Mo. 493, 495; Norman Vandenberg, 157 Mo.App. 488, 138 S.W. 47.] And the jury having found on substantial evidence that the plaintiff was instrumental i......
  • The National Bank of Commerce of Kansas City v. Morris
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 14 Febrero 1893
    ... ... contract between the parties. Munson v. Ensor, 94 ... Mo. 504; Brownlee v. Arnold, 60 Mo. 79; Neenan ... v. Donoghue, 50 Mo. 493; Lewis v. Ins. Co., 3 ... Mo.App. 372; Railroad v. Atkinson, 17 Mo.App. 484; ... Railroad v. Levy, 17 Mo.App. 501; ... ...
  • Hoyt v. Buder
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 18 Febrero 1928
    ...he is liable to the plaintiff as though the contract had been fully performed by him. Norman v. Vandenberg, 157 Mo. App. 494; Neenan v. Donoghue, 50 Mo. 495. (5) It is unnecessary that the defendant should have received a part of the purchase price of the property or been beneficially inter......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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