Eyerman v. Blakesley

Decided March 13, 1883

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1883-03-13

<p>1. Special Tax-Bills. — A special tax-bill made out against a lot in the city of St. Louis for its proportionate share of the cost of the street improvement, is not void because the work was not let out in one entire contract. Bakewell, J., dissenting.</p> <p>2. -Official Succession. — Where a tax-bill for work actually done is void for informality, and it afterwards becomes the duty of another officer to issue tax-bills, he may issue a valid tax-bill in place of the void one.</p>

Relies on Eyerman v. Hardy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1883-03-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 1940

11 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Dissenting opinion by

Bakewell, J.

¶2I cannot see that the city engineer has any authority, express or implied, to let this work out in sections. I consider that I have nothing to do with the question whether he ought to have this power or not. I concurred in Eyerman v. Hardy (8 Mo. App. 311). That case was very carefully considered, and has been followed by this court in subsequent cases. I do not think that it ought to be disturbed.

¶3I cod cur in what is said in the opinion of the court in this case as to the power of the president of the board of *415improvements to certify to the tax-bill. The original tax-bill was void. The contractor was entitled to his tax-bill, and the president of the board of improvements was the proper officer to issue it, and has all the necessary data before him by virtue of his office.

¶4The judgment should, in my opinion, be affirmed.