# Fulton v. City of Lockwood

> Supreme Court of Missouri · April 12, 1954 · 269 S.W.2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648555

## Case

- **Full name:** FULTON v. CITY OF LOCKWOOD Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** April 12, 1954
- **Citations:** 269 S.W.2d 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Bohling, Westhues, Barrett
- **Cited by:** 40 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648555

## Opinion text

On Motion for Rehearing or Transfer to Court en Banc
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for rehearing or, in the alternative, for transfer to Court en Banc.
Of the several contentions presented, we think the only one that need be considered is the contention that the opinion is in conflict with Bride v. City of Slater, Mo., 263 S.W.2d 22, 28 , wherein it was held the city could not recover the money voluntarily paid for fuel oil accepted and used by the city under a contract which was void because it did not meet the mandatory requirements of § 432.070 (quoted in the opinion), requiring the consideration to be in writing. The holding was limited in express terms to the circumstances of that case. The case at bar differs on the facts in that there is evidence of record that the plans and specifications of the instant plaintiff were discarded because the cost was prohibitive. Futhermore, the instant plaintiff’s suit was for six percent of plaintiff’s estimated $148,000 construction costs of the sewerage system and the defendant city was not in a position to lawfully finance the construction under the applicable statutory and constitutional provisions. We were mindful of the holding in Bride v. City of Slater, but considered and still consider it distinguishable from the instant case.
The motion for rehearing or, in the alternative, for transfer to Court en Banc is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9648555. Public record. Not legal advice.