Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-11-16
NICOLSON PAVEMENTS.
The Contractor Cannot Recover from
the owner of Property for Putting
Down NicOIsOn Pavement by Order
NJ the MayOr and Engineer.

H
the owner of Property for Putting
Down NicOIsOn Pavement by Order
of the Mayor and Engineer.
From the st. Louis Democrat. 10th instant.]
The following important decision was
rendered in the Supreme Court yester-
day, in the case of Ruggies & Bixter vs.
Sarah A. Collier. This was an action
brought in the st. Louis Circuit Court to
enforce the payment of special tax
bill issued by the St. Louis City Engi-
neer under street-paving contract.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
The petition sets forth in substance
that the defendants are the proprietors
of a lot in block No. ii, in St. Louis,
fronting on the south on Olive street, and
on the west on Commercial street. The
petition also sets out Uerbdtint' the 10th
section of an ordinance entitled An
Ordinance establishing and regulating
the Engineer Department, approved
August s, 1864" The section is in the
following words: "Sec. 10. In that por'
ton of the city bounded on the north by
the north side of Carr street, on the west
by the east side of Ninth street, on the
south by the south side of Poplar street,
and on the east by the levee; the Mayor
is hereby authorized to cause the carriage
ways of the streets thereof to be repaved
with wooden pavement, wherever and
whenever he shall deem it necessary
and he may instruct the City Engineer to
cause any street or portion of street,
within the above described limits, to be
repaired under contract, which shall be
let out in the usual manner"
The petition then states that the City
Engineer, acting under the authority OF
said ordinance, entered into contract
with the plaintiffs to repair Olive street
and Commercial street, in front OF the
property of the defendants and others.
That the contract was submitted to and
approved by the City Council on the l4th
day of June, 1867; that the work under
the contract was done by the plaintiffs,
and a special tax bill delivered to the
plaintiffs against the defendants by the
City Engineer, amounting to $6l3, and
that the defendants have refused to pay
the same.
The petition asks judgment for the
said amount, with fifteen per cent. in
terest. and a special execution against
the property chargeable with the lien.
The defendants appeared in the Cir
cult Court and filed demurrer to the
petition, assigning the following grounds;
l. That the tenth section of the city
ordinance set out in the petition was not
authorized by the charter, and was illegal
and void.
2. That the work done by the plaintiffs
was done without authority of law, or OF
any valid city ordinance.
The Circuit Court, in general term,
sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiffs
declining to take leave to answer, the
court rendered final judgment for the
defendants.
The case is now brought into this
court BY writ Of error
The natural question arising is,
whether the 18th section Of the city ordi-
nance establishing and regulating the
Engineer department is conformable to
the city charter
The act supplementary to the several
acts TO incorporate the city Of St Louis,
approved March 5, 1855, and which was
in force when the above ordinance was
passed, provides IN section that 10
those cases where the City Council snaii
deem il necessary and also N ali cases
where the owners Of the major part Of
the lots or lands fronting on any paved
street, or any portion Of paved street.
or any portion Of paved alley, may Pc
tition for repsving the same, TIE City
Council shall cause such repaving 10 Be
done ia manner prescribed By ordi-
nance"
The objection made By the demurrer
and sustained In the court belos, was The