Citation Numbers: 299 S.W. 819, 221 Mo. App. 1225
Judges: BLAND, J.
Filed Date: 11/7/1927
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The evidence shows that the two lots in controversy are under one ownership, are not fenced or separated by a fence. They are on a corner of the block and, being vacant, are used by defendant and his family for raising a garden and for fruit without reference to the lot lines.
The material facts are that the improvement was completed by the holder of the tax bill, the Reinert Bros. Construction Company *Page 1226 and on October 7, 1921, the city engineer filed his report with the city council assessing the cost of the improvement. On said day the council passed an ordinance, being Ordinance No. 110, approving the report. This ordinance levied a special tax against the property liable therefor, and provided that the total assessment against Lot 4, Block 20, should be $333.53 and against Lot 1, in the same block, the sum of $388.29. The ordinance directed the city clerk to "issue tax bills against each of the above and foregoing described properties for the amount of the special tax herein levied against the same, and, when said tax bills have been fully executed and recorded to deliver the same to the contractor."
It appears that instead of issuing two tax bills for the respective amounts assessed against each lot as directed by the ordinance, the city clerk issued an aggregate tax bill against both lots, figuring and assessing the amounts against the two lots as a whole, but the figures of the clerk do not correspond with those in the ordinance even if the assessments against the two lots made in the ordinance are added together. For instance, the total assessment in the ordinance against the two lots for paving is $467.71 while the clerk assessed the sum of $562.86 for this work.
We think there is no question but that the tax bill issued is void. The statutes, sections 8510 and 8505, Revised Statutes 1919, provide that the board of aldermen shall levy the tax provided for in the statute for improvements of the character involved here. Under the provision of similar statutes, it has been held that it is not even within the power of the council to delegate to the city clerk the authority to levy and assess the cost of a street improvement. [Sedalia to use v. Donahue,
Plaintiff insists that the evidence shows that the two lots against which the tax bill sued upon was issued, are contiguous and are occupied and treated by the defendant and his family as one property and that the lots therefore are chargeable in one bill for the improvement of the street. In support of this contention plaintiff cites the case of Mound City v. Shields,
It is complained that the court erred in admitting in evidence a certified copy of Ordinance No. 110, duly certified by the city clerk on June 5, 1923, it being shown that an ordinance book was maintained by the city in which was kept a record of ordinances passed by the board of aldermen. We find from an examination of plaintiff's abstract that about the time of the trial, which was early in 1926, the city clerk was unable to find the original ordinance. The additional abstract brought here by the respondent, shows that that part of the ordinance book covering Ordinance No. 110 was introduced in evidence. The record in the ordinance book shows on its face that it does not contain the entire ordinance, the part computing and assessing the tax against the particular tracts being omitted. The objection to the certified copy of the ordinance was not based upon any contention that it was not a correct copy of the ordinance, but that the ordinance book should be produced as original evidence. The certified copy was properly admitted in view of the fact that the original ordinance was lost and the ordinance book upon its face does not purport to contain the entire ordinance, but parts material to this controversy are omitted. [Wells v. Pressy,
The judgment is affirmed. Arnold, J., concurs; Trimble,P.J., absent.