# State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. City of Sullivan

> Missouri Court of Appeals · February 4, 1975 · 520 S.W.2d 186

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768943

## Case

- **Full name:** State of Missouri Ex Rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of Missouri, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SULLIVAN, Missouri, and the Honorable George Hayes, Mayor of the City of Sullivan, Missouri, Individually, Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Missouri Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 4, 1975
- **Citations:** 520 S.W.2d 186; 1975 Mo. App. LEXIS 1595
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McMILLIAN
- **Judges:** Gunn, Simeone, McMillian
- **Cited by:** 14 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/9768943

## Opinion text

McMILLIAN, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The minute entry in the City Journal, dated January 18, 1968, clearly was the basis for the adoption of Ordinance No. 1062, dated 23 January 1968. Armed with City of Sullivan Ordinance No. 1062, the Mayor of the City of Sullivan was authorized to execute a contract with the State Highway Department. Pursuant to the authorization of the Ordinance, on July 11, 1968, Mayor Hayes executed the utility agreement set forth in the majority opinion.
Under the agreement the original cost set forth was an estimate; however, to in *191 sure that if the cost either exceeded the estimate or was lower than the estimate the utility agreement contained a provision to cover either contingency. When the Ordinance and the minute entry are integrated and read together, in my opinion, it is abundantly clear that the Mayor had the authority to execute the utility agreement. Any lack of specificity by the utility agreement is made abundantly clear by both the minute entry in the city journal and Ordinance No. 1062 and especially so by the urban agreement.
To permit the City of Sullivan to benefit from the alterations and relocation of the utility pipeline as contained in the utility agreement is to unduly and unjustly enrich it at the expense of the State Highway Commission contrary to the City of Sullivan’s obligation under the contract. I would reverse and enter judgment in favor of appellant.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9768943. Public record. Not legal advice.