Field v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co.

Citations

• 117 F. 925
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5151

Syllabus

<p>1. Cloud on Title—Removal—Action in Equity—Possession of Plaintiff.</p> <p>A suit in equity may be maintained for tbe removal of a cloud on title under tbe Missouri statutes, though plaintiff is not in possession.</p> <p>2. United States Courts—Jurisdiction—Amount in Controversy.</p> <p>Where complainant sued to set aside special tax bills assessed against certain lots in a city, of which he owned the fee, and he was the equitable owner of other lots assessed, and the tax bills on all the lots amounted to over $2,000, the federal court had jurisdiction.</p> <p>8. Municipal Corporations—Special Taxes—Tax Bills—Registration by City Clerk.</p> <p>The failure of the city clerk of a city to register tax bills for special assessments, as required by the Missouri statutes, is not a sufficient defense against the bills, the statute being directory merely.</p> <p>4. Same—Street Grading—Assessment.</p> <p>Where the evidence, in an action to restrain a special city assessment, showed that the grading, for which the city was not entitled to charge the abutting property, was not included, at least to any great extent, In the cost of paving, and no extra charge or expense for the grading was made, the fact that some grading was done was immaterial.</p> <p>5. Same—City Improvements—Protest—Statutes—Constitution ality-^Re-</p> <p>view.</p> <p>Where a nonresident property owner did not appear after notice and attempt to protest against a city street improvement, he cannot, in an action to restrain enforcement of tax bills against his property, obtain a review of the constitutionality of Laws Mo. 1895, § 95, limiting the right to protest to resident owners.</p> <p>6. Contract for Improvement—Acts of Aldermen—Review.</p> <p>The board of aldermen of a city, in procuring the improvement of streets and letting the contract therefor, do not act in a legislative capacity, but act in an administrative or business capacity, and hence their acts are reviewable on the ground of fraud or cor