Youmans v. Everett

• Decision Date: 16 June 1913
• Parties: YOUMANS v. EVERETT.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

160 S.W. 274

173 Mo. App. 671

YOUMANS v. EVERETT.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 16, 1913.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 304) — PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS — PRELIMINARY ORDINANCE — CHARTER REQUIREMENTS.

An ordinance for the construction of a sewer, which provided that it should conform in detail to the plans and specifications on file in the office of the board of public works, is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Charter and Revised Ordinances of Kansas City 1898, art. 9, § 10, that the ordinance prescribe the specifications for the sewer or refer to plans and specifications then on file and approved by the board of public works.

2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 568) — PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS — ENFORCEMENT OF ASSESSMENTS — ACTIONS FOR SALE OF LAND — BURDEN OF PROOF.

The burden was upon the defendant, in proceedings to enforce tax bills, to show that the specifications referred to in an ordinance for the construction of a sewer as being on file with the board of public works were not in fact on file.

3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 568) — ENFORCEMENT OF ASSESSMENTS — ACTIONS FOR SALE OF LAND — WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.

Proof that there was no record of any order approving such specifications between a date two weeks before the adoption of the ordinance and some months afterwards, is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of the truth of the recital in the ordinance that they were on file.

4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 296) — PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS — PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES.

The provision of the ordinances of Kansas City requiring the engineer to submit estimates of the cost of an improvement when required to do so by the council or by the board of public works does not require the making of such estimate a condition precedent to the enactment of an initial ordinance for a public improvement.

5. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 330) — PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS — CONTRACTS — VALIDITY — PARTICULAR MATERIALS.

Any scheme or device which prevents competitive bidding for the construction of a public improvement and promotes favoritism renders the whole proceeding void.

6. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (§ 330) — PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS — CONTRACTS — VALIDITY — PARTICULAR MATERIALS.

Where a provision was inserted in a contract for the construction of a sewer that the brick used should be manufactured in the city and it appeared that there was only one manufacturer of such brick, but there was no provision of that kind in the ordinance, plans, and specifications nor advertisement for bids, and no evidence that bidders were advised that such provision would be inserted in the contract, the contract was not thereby rendered void, since the clause could in no way have affected the competitive bidding.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Jos. A. Guthrie, Judge.

Action by F. C. Youmans against Leonard Everett. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. F. Allen and Leonard Waddell, both of Kansas City, for appellant. Ball & Ryland, of Kansas City, for respondent.

JOHNSON, J.

The object of this suit is the enforcement of the lien of special tax bills issued by Kansas City in payment of the cost of building a district sewer. Defendant attacks the validity of the ordinance under which the work was done on the grounds that it failed to prescribe the dimensions, material, and character of the work; that no specifications were prepared, filed, and approved in the time and manner provided by law; and that the ordinance did not refer to the specifications as being on file for public inspection in the office of the engineer or of the board of public works. Other defenses are based on the failure of the engineer to prepare and file a preliminary estimate of the cost of the sewer; on a stipulation in the contract requiring the contractor to use vitrified brick manufactured in Kansas City, unless otherwise authorized by the city engineer; and on the alleged fact that the contractor failed to complete the sewer within the time specified in the contract and specifications or within a reasonable time.

The issues thus raised were tried without a jury and were resolved by the court in favor of plaintiff, for whom judgment was rendered. Defendant appealed. The ordinance under which the...