Case Name: WILLIAM HUGGINS, Respondent, v. RACKLIFFE-GIBSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant
Court: Kansas City Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1910-11-07
Citations: 151 Mo. App. 312
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM HUGGINS, Respondent, v. RACKLIFFE-GIBSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 312–314

Head Matter:
WILLIAM HUGGINS, Respondent, v. RACKLIFFE-GIBSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
November 7, 1910.
TAXBILLS: Sufficiency of Notice: Time for Completion of Work. The notice and time for the completion of the work considered and held to • be sufficient Gist v. Construction Co., 224 Mo. 369.
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.— Hon. Lucian J. Eastin, Judge.
Reversed and remanded (with directions).
Fulkerson, Graham $ Smith for appellant.
The court erred in overruling RacMiffe-Gibson Construction Company’s demurrer: First, because the designating notice was in compliance with the law governing cities of the second class and was sufficient. Gist v. Racldiffe-Gibson Const. Co., 123 S. W. Rep. 921. Second, because ordinance No. 4714 did fix the time within which the work was to be completed and was a perfectly valid ordinance. All the points raised by respondent in his petition have been heretofore by this court and the' Supreme Court determined adversely to his contention. Gist v. Rackliffe-Gibson Const. Co., 123 S. W. Rep. 921; Cushing v. Richardson, 128 S. W. Rep. 805. Under the authority of the cases above cited, appellant contends that the judgment in this case should be reversed.
Vories & Vories for respondent.

Opinion:
BROAD DES, P. J.
This is a suit to cancel certain taxbills.
On July 16, 1907,. the city of St. Joseph passed a special ordinance which provided for certain street improvements. Thereafter, under authority of said ordinance, the city, awarded the contract to defendant construction company, it being the lowest and best bidder. The contract was awarded on the 31st day of July, 1908, by the terms of which the company was given six months to complete the same. On the second day of January, 1909, the work was completed and accepted by the city, which was within the time specified. On the 22d day of January, the taxbills for payment of said work were duly issued to defendant, among which were certain taxbills issued against the property of plaintiff.
On the 10th day of April, 1909, the plaintiff instituted this suit to cancel said taxbills. The grounds upon which he relies to maintain his action are: First, that the designating notice was insufficient because it was too vague and indefinite and did not sufficiently notify the property owners of the character of the work to be done and the materials to be used. Second, it did not fix the time within which the work was to be completed. The defendant filed a demurrer to the plaintiff's petition which the court overruled. The defendant stood on its demurrer and failing to further plead, the court rendered judgment canceling said taxbills from which it appealed.
The notice and time for the completion of the work are the same as were passed on in Gist v. Rackliffe-Gibson Construction Co., 224 Mo. 369, and similar to those in Cushing v. Richardson, 143 Mo. App. 608, and held to be sufficient.
We deem it unnecessary to repeat the utterance in those cases. The cause is therefore reversed and remanded,with directions to set aside the order overruling defendant's demurrer, also the judgment ren dered, and to enter an order sustaining said demurrer and to render judgment in favor of defendant.
All concur.