Powell v. City of St. Joseph

• Decision Date: 31 January 1861
• Citation: 31 Mo. 347
• Parties: POWELL, Respondent, v. THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

31 Mo. 347

POWELL, Respondent,

v.THE CITY OF ST. JOSEPH et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1861.

1. Under the statute (Acts 1856-7, p. 249,) which authorizes the City of St. Joseph to assess the cost of macadamizing, paving and repairing streets to the owners of adjoining property in proportion to their front on said streets, the cost of paving, &c., of the crossings should be assessed to the property owners of the adjoining blocks in proportion to their front, in such manner as the city ordinances require.

Appeal from Buchanan Court of Common Pleas.

Hall, for appellant.

I. The plaintiff contends that if the provision of the city charter is constitutional, that it does not authorize the city to charge the cost of macadamizing the street crossing to property which does not adjoin such crossings. The argument is that the city is only authorized to charge the cost of macadamizing the streets to the property adjoining the improvement. This is a misconstruction of the law. The charter says that the macadamizing done on any street shall be charged to the adjoining property in proportion to its front; that is, such work is to be paid by the property adjoining the street and in proportion to its front on the street. When macadamizing is done in front of a lot, the spirit and letter of the law will be preserved by charging the cost of the work to lots fronting the improvement. But where the macadamizing is not in front of any property, the city may charge the cost of it to all the property in the street in proportion to its front to the adjoining blocks in proportion to their front, or to the adjoining quarter blocks in proportion to their front in such manner as the ordinances of the city may direct. A single case will illustrate the incorrectness of plaintiff's position. The defendants insist that the following authorities sustain their views: City of St. Joseph v. Anthony, 30 Mo. 537; Inhabitants of Palmyra v. Morton, 25 Mo. 594; Egyptian Levee Co. v. Hardin, 27 Mo. 495; Garnett v. City of St. Louis, 25 Mo. 505; Lockwood v. City of St. Louis, 24 Mo. 20; Sharp v. Speir, 4 Hill, 81; The People v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 4 Comstock, 433; Gilkerson v. Frederick Justices, 13 Grat. 578; Washington v. State, 13 Ark. 761.

NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit presents the same question raised in the case of City of St. Joseph v. O'Donoghue in a different mode. This was a petition to enjoin the marshal of the city from...