The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1883-08-11
UTICA BRIDGE ONCE MORE

Some weeks ago we published the decree
of Judge Blodgett in the Utica bridge case
The Legal NeUs of last week, contains the
decision in the case, a part OF which will
be interesting to the public.
The Judge recites the history of the
case, including the fact that in 1877 by the
board of supervisors of La Sale county
the sum of $1,000 was appropriated to aid
Utica and Deer Park in the construction OF
this bridge, and, as it then appeared thai
Utica had paid all that had been paid
toward the work, It was ordered that $500
of said appropriation be paid to Utica and
the same was so paid, and at the March
meeting of said board, 1892, the balance
of said Appropriation was ordered paid to
the town of Utica.
The Judge says the evidence shows the
Bridge Company expected pay for the
bridge ana built it IN good faith. Then
follows an examination of the authorities
cited by counsel, after which Is the pith OF
the decision, as follows;
As to the objections interposed by the
respective defendants to the relief asked
by plaintiff, 1t is only necessary to say;
The town of Utica insists that 1t has cX.
pended sum OF money in paying for the
piers and abutments on which this bridge
rests, has paid over $4,000 to plaintiff 10
apply on the superstructure that the town
& .; hog actually in ppni fplth
ded more than IT'S proportion of the cost Of
the construction of the bridge as whole.
The reply to this Is that this defendant
agreed to pay plaintiff one half the cost of
the iron superstruCture and has repudiated
its contract IN that regard, and that this
plaintiff should not be made loser by rea-
son of the default of Deer Park to keep
faith with Utica and pay It's halfot the cost
of the bridge. While II was agreed that
Utica should only pay for halt the cost of
the superstruCture IL was also agreed that
il should collect the other half from Deer
Park and pay 1t to complainant and this 1t
has neglected TO do.
In behalf of Deer Park, it is urged, that
the plaintiff placed the bridge there volun.
iarily and in face of the notice from the
officers of the town that the town would
MT pay for It that the bridge Is built upon
public highway of the town and that the
situation of the bridge Is analogous to that
of house knowingly built by one man
upon the land of another. TO which, il
may be answered, that the plaintiff had as
good right to act on the faith that the town
would pay for the bridge, because the PEG.
ple had voted To do So, rs II had To act upon
the notice of the officers of the town that it
would not pay for it, There was no at
tempt on the part OF the town 10 prevent
the construction of the bridge, but its prop
CT officers were promptto accept the bridge
and the people of the town to use 1t as
soon as II was finished according to con-
tract; and, If this town has so far used this
bridge without intending to pay for IL, il
cannot complain If the court allows the
plaintiff to take IL away.
The defense on the part Of the c0uny of
La Sale Is that il has contributed $1,000
toward paying for the bridge of which It
will be deprived, If the bridge is removed.
This argument would have some force i'll
he county had paid the money TO the