Case ID: mo-app_76/html/0355-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bond, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Barber Asphalt Paving Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. Henry C. Sanford, Trustee, Defendant in Error.
    St. Louis Court of Appeals,
    November 1, 1898.
    (Reporter. — In cases numbered 7223, 7224, 7226 and 7227 wherein the same parties were plaintiff in error and defendant in error, on the same pleadings, and at the same term of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, the same judgment was rendered in each of said cases, as is set forth in the foregoing case.)
    
      Writ of Error to the St. Louis City Circuit Court. Hon. John M. Wood, Judge.
    Adiel Sheewood for plaintiff in error.
    It is not thought necessary to go into any extended argument to show that the court below committed error in sustaining the demurrer to the petition of plaintiff for the reason that in an exactly similar ease this court has heretofore decided that the petition of plaintiff did state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and reversed and remanded the cause. It is submitted that the said decision of the court in that case is conclusive here. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Young, 68 Mo. App. 175.
   Bond, J.

In this case the trial court sustained a general demurrer to the petition filed upon special tax bills, which petition contained the general allegations held to be sufficient to state a cause of action by this court in Bank v. Wright, 68 Mo. App. 144; Paving Co. v. Young, ibid. 175. It follows that the ruling of the circuit court was error under the authority of these decisions. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.