Case Name: CALEB WINFREY, Appellant, v. ABEL LINGER, Respondent
Court: Kansas City Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1901-05-06
Citations: 89 Mo. App. 159
Docket Number: 
Parties: CALEB WINFREY, Appellant, v. ABEL LINGER, Respondent.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 159–161

Head Matter:
CALEB WINFREY, Appellant, v. ABEL LINGER, Respondent.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
May 6, 1901.
1. Taxbills: STREET IMPROVEMENTS: CONTRACT COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME. Where the paving of a street is not completed within the time limited by the contract, a taxbill issued therefor is void.
2. -: -: OBJECTIONS. Where a taxbill is void, the property-owner is not required to file objections stating his defense.
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. James Gibson, Judge,
Affirmed.
W. P. Borland and G. O. Tichenor for appellant.
(1) The defense was that the contract was not completed within the time fixed. But there was substantial compliance, and that was all that was necessary. Time here was not of the essence of the contract. (2) The provisions of the charter on the subject are clear and imperative that the lot-owner, if he wishes to dispute the taxbills, must within sixty days after their issue, file with the board of public works a written statement of each and all objections, and that “no objection or objections shall be pleaded or proved, other than those which have been filed.” No objection- was filed. If this law be invalid, it must be because it violates something in the Constitution, Federal or State, -and it ought not to be repealed by construction. Laws are held valid which require, in accident cases, the filing of notice within a limited time, of time and place where accident happened, the claimant losing his right of action in case of failure. Wentworth v. Town, etc., 60 Wis. 282; Savory v. City, 132 Mass. 324; Harder v. Minneapolis, 40 Minn. 446; Cuculla v. Hernandez, 103 U. S. 113; Pritchard v. Norton, 106 U. S. 129; Pryor v. Kansas City, 153 Mo. 135; Water Co. v. City, 136 Mo. 498; Bishop on Contr., sec. 94; Trust Co.v. Donnell, 81 Mo. App. 150.
Milton Moore for respondent.
(1) There could be no recovery on this taxbill, and the trial court properly overruled the instructions asked by the appellant and properly found for the defendant. Rose v. Trestrail, 62 Mo. App. 352; McQuiddv v. Brannock, 70 Mo. App. 535; Wiittenmore v. Sills, 76 Mo. App. 248. , (2) Upon the assumption that the taxbill sued on was invalid because of the failure to complete tbe contract in tbe time required, was the defendant called upon to file with tbe board of public works a written statement of bis objections to such tax-bills within sixty days after their issue ? Tbis question bas been answered in an exhaustive opinion of tbis court in tbe ease of Ricbter v. Merrill, 84 Mo. App. 150; Mason v. Crowder, 85 Mo. 532.

Opinion:
ELLISON, J.
Tbis is an action on a special taxbill against real estate in Kansas City, Missouri. Tbe judgment in tbe trial court was for defendant.
Tbe case consists of two propositions. Eirst, that notwithstanding tbe paving for which tbe taxbill was issued was not done within tbe time limited by tbe contract, yet tbe bill is valid. That proposition bas been so often decided to tbe contrary we will not now again go over tbe question. Neill v. Gates, 152 Mo. 585; McQuiddy v. Brannock, 70 Mo. App. 535; Rose v. Trestrail, 62 Mo. App. 352; Whittemore v. Sills, 76 Mo. App. 248; Trust Co. v. James, 77 Mo. App. 616.
Tbe second proposition is that notwithstanding tbe invalidity of the taxbill, yet, since tbe defendant failed to file bis objections thereto stating what defense be purposed maki-ncr in tbe event of a suit thereon, within sixty days after tbe issue (as required by section 23, article 9, Charter) be can not now be beard. That- proposition bas likewise been directly decided against appellant. Richter v. Merrill, 84 Mo. App. 150.
There is no merit in tbe appeal and tbe judgment will be affirmed.
All concur.