Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Withnell v. William R. Bush Construction Co.

Withnell v. William R. Bush Constr. Co., 216 U.S. 603 (1910)

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1910-02-28
Topic: general

Per Curiam. Decree affirmed with costs by a divided court.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Withnell v. William R. Bush Construction Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 1 opinion

WITHNELLv. BUSH CONSTRUCTION CO.,216 U.S. 603(1910)

WITHNELLv. WILLIAM R. BUSH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT

OF MISSOURI.

No. 108.

Argued January 26, 1910.

Decided February 28, 1910.

A decree of the Circuit Court sustaining a demurrer to a complaint praying that an assessment for construction of a street be declared void as depriving plaintiff of his property without due process of law, affirmed by a divided court without opinion.

THE brief of the appellee contains the following statement:

This is a bill in equity. The parties to the suit, plaintiff

and defendants, are all residents of Missouri and of the same

judicial district in that State. The subject-matter of the suit

is the contention on the part of the plaintiff that the two

special tax bills described in the complaint, issued against his

property, by the public authorities of St. Louis, under the

charter of that city, as a local assessment for the construction

of a street, are void. The tax bills are claimed to be void for

one of two reasons, stated in the alternative, namely, first,

because the assessment district, as formed, and which includes

the plaintiff's property, is not in conformity to the charter

Page 604

requirements, and, second, if it shall be found that the district

is correctly defined, then that the charter provision, under

which it was formed is void, because in contravention of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The defendants below demurred to the bill upon the grounds:

1. That the plaintiff has a complete adequate remedy at law.

2. That the allegations of the bill affirmatively show that

the assessment district therein referred to was established in

accordance with the provisions of the charter of St. Louis.

3. That the matter stated in the bill is not a subject of

Federal cognizance.

The demurrer was sustained and the complainant declining to

plead further, a decree dismissing the bill was entered, from

which decree the complainant appealed.

Mr. Edmund T. AllenandMr. Clifford B. Allenfor the appellant.Mr. E.C. Kehrfor the appellees, submitted.

Per Curiam.

Decree affirmed with costs by a divided court.