Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 Mo. 105

Ess v. Bouton

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1876

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1876-10-15

<p>I. Special tax bills, evidence of contract with city, when — Evidence—Prima facie case made out by bill — Evidence contra will not be reviewed, when. — Under a municipal charter which provides that a special tax bill shall “ in any action brought thereon baprima facie evidence that the work and material charged in such bill have been furnished, and of the liability of the parties therein named as the owner of the property,” the bill itself furnishes presumptive evidence of the existence of the contract under which the work was done. Such bill being put in evidence furnishes a prima fade case, and no declaration of law being given, the Supreme Court will not review the opposing evidence for the purpose of determining whether it be sufficient to overthrow the case so made out.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1918

9 state decisions

4018761880189019001910decided

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 →

Norton, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This suit is for the recovery of a special tax hill for making side-walk on part of Third Street in Kansas City, which was issued to the contractors and by them assigned to plaintiff. The suit was instituted against defendants as owners of lot No. 294, block 31, and its object is to subject said lot to the payment of said tax bill.

¶3The case was tried before a justice of the peace and judgment rendered for plaintiff, from which an appeal was taken to the Special Law and Equity Court of Jackson County and on a trial de novo in said court, judgment was again rendered for plaintiff.

¶4The case was tried by .the court without the intervention of a jury, no declarations of law were asked and none were given, and the only exception saved, as shown by the record, was as to the action of the court in admitting the tax bill as evidence. Defendants objected to its introduction on the ground that plaintiff 'should first prove the existence of a contract under which the work was done, for which the tax bill was issued.

¶5Section four of an act to revise and amend the charter of the City of Kansas (Acts 1870, p. 347) provides that such tax bill shall “ in any action brought thereon, be prima facie evidence that the words: and material charged in such .bill have been furnished, and of the liability of the persons therein named as the owners of such property.”

¶6Under this provision, the objection of defendant was properly overruled.

¶7It is urged that the judgment is against the evidence. A number of the ordinances of the city were offered in evidence without objection, and this court will not look into the evidence for the pui’pose of weighing it and ascertaining whether it preponderated on the side of plaintiff or defendant.

¶8A prima facie case was made when the tax bill was received in evidence and no declarations of law having been given, the evi*107deuce will not be reviewed here for tbe purpose of determining its sufficiency to overthrow the case made by plaintiff.

¶9Judgment affirmed,

in which the other judges concur.
/64/mo/105 · .json · Public domain