Turner v. City of Springfield

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Ellison
• Citation: Turner v. City of Springfield, 117 Mo. App. 418, 93 S.W. 867 (Mo. App. 1906)
• Decision Date: 05 March 1906
• Parties: TURNER et al. v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD et al.

93 S.W. 867

117 Mo. App. 418

TURNER et al. v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD et al.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 5, 1906.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — STREET IMPROVEMENTS — PROCEEDINGS — VALIDITY — ASSESSMENTS.

Laws 1901, p. 65, § 5859, provides that when the council of a city of the third class declares it proper to pave a street, it shall by resolution declare such work to be necessary and cause the resolution to be published, and that there shall be a public advertisement for bids for the work before the contract is let. Section 5858 (page 63) provides that before any contract for paving shall be let an estimate of the cost shall be reported to the council. Held, that where an advertised proposal for bids for the paving of a portion of a city street required the work to be completed within 90 days, and the contract contained no requirement whatever as to when the work was to be completed, and it was not in fact completed for more than a year, assessments levied therefor were void.

2. SAME—REASONABLE TIME.

Where a proposal for bids for the paving of a portion of a city street less than two-thirds of a mile in length, required the work to be done within 90 days, but the contract contained no such provision, and the work was not completed for more than a year, it was not completed within a reasonable time.

Error to Circuit Court, Dade County; H. C. Timmonds, Judge.

Bill by D. M. Turner and others against the City of Springfield and others. From a decree in favor of plaintiffs, defendants bring error. Affirmed.

A. P. Tatlow and Barbour & McDavid, for plaintiffs in error. G. G. Lydy, for defendants in error.

ELLISON, J.

The plaintiffs are owners of property abutting on Springfield avenue in the city of Springfield. The avenue was paved under proceedings in the city counsel resulting in the letting of a contract for such paving to E. A. Barber, one of the defendants. These plaintiffs brought the present bill in equity to restrain the issuing of the bills and to cancel any, if already issued. A change of venue was taken to Dade county where, on trial, a decree was entered for the plaintiffs, declaring the bills to be void. Springfield is a city of the third class. It is provided by section 5859, p. 65, Laws 1901, that when the council of cities of that class declare it proper to pave a street it shall by resolution "declare such work or improvements necessary to be done," and cause the resolution to be published. It is also provided (section 5858 of said act) that, before any contract for paving shall be let, an estimate of the cost thereof shall be made by the city engineer and reported to the council. It is also provided (section 5859 of said act) that there shall be public advertisement for bids for the work before the contract is let. It is this last provision we will apply to the present controversy.

It appears that the paving directed by the council, and which defendant Barber undertook to do, was only a distance of a few blocks (stated to be less than two-thirds of a mile), that he was more than one year in doing...