Telegram-herald., 1890-12-17
OFFICERS OF COUNCIL.
Accepted aud siea.

F
GRAAB KArlBs. NleA.. December la g. $50.
10 the Honorable. tle Common Coano.i q The
City of Grand karios,
Gentlemen Humber OF iiiieatod eases mot
street opeuingsliH ~ hleh fhe ciIy Is a party
having been either finally disposed 81 or arslrd
and submitted 20 the -upremeC curt where thsg
await decision. The status Of Which eases las
not heretofore been communicated 60 thf
council respectfully make report ~ follows.
The case of Adelmtr y. Plumb ~. The Cits
of Grand Rapids an action oi eiecimfnt.
brought for the sogfh three-hiiAs a what BE-
known as Crescent Park. lcssr pending s. the
tine OF my appointment WAS tried ano sub
mffed on behalf ef The city by Hon. j. 81.
Ransom and myself and Judgment rendered
in favor OF the city IN ibe superior Court
Plaintiff arptaed 70 the supreme Court.
where the ease was in Ike manner. argued
and submitted by Mr. Ransom and myself on
April 10th. lsq0. ana thereafter decision ren-
derei by the Supreme Court in favor Of The
city. sustaining the judgment of the Superior
Court.
The case Of Nathaniel Thsyer et al. vs The
City OF Grand Rapids. Case brougbt in The
super or Court 10 recover their proportion OF
surplus received o. Is number OF assessment
rolls. pending 10 said court a. the time Of ny
appointment Was tried by MT. Ransom and
myself ID the Superior Court Judgment rcn-
dered agsiast tie city Tor the sum OF Sls 1870
dollars. the amount claimed being 81 q 200
dollars. with interest amounting 10 over 500.
Both plaintiffs and the city took
an appeal 20 the supreme Court. The appeal on
The part OF the city being 10 determine the
right 10 charge, rs part of the estimate, Tor
an assessment. for eng cheering. surveying 4
penses. commissioners fees. printing bills.
stantialy determined in favor - the city. The
appeal on the part Of the plaintiffs being the
claim that they were entitled 10 recover the
full amount Of their original claim. with In
ierest; and this class Of items should
net be chsrreable IN an estimate for
an assessment. The case was argued
and submitted 10y Sir. Ransom aud my
self in The Supreme Court. which court. on
August !. Iso. aalrmed the Judgment 81 the
court below which had held that that class of
charges were proper charges 20 be Included ga
the assessment
The case of Albert I. Hatch aad John p.
White rs. the CItv of Grand Rapids. FOR the
sum % -ssl7.3. with interest. for the lumber
furnished for the interior woodwork Of the
city hali a csse pending ln the Superior court
az the time of my appointment came on for
trial on November = lsal. and was tried in
the said superior court by hr. Ransom and
myself. Hon. Birney Hoyt and John a. Fair.
| field Esq. representing tie plaintiffs and al
ter trial lasting four and one-half DAYS. the
! court rendered d judgment ia favor of the
! city. From this judgment DO appeal has been
/ or win be taken.
The ease Of James h. Brown. complainant.
rs. the city Of Grand Rapids defendant. in
| the superior court. bin % set aside sale Of
! property assessed % foiray the expenses a
| opening. etc. Wealthy avenue. Case pending
az the time 81 my appointment 10 charge ~
Mr. Ransom; has been by him argued and
| submitted m tie superior court. whore de-
cree was rendered for complainant wbereupou
| the city took an appeal n the Supreme court
| where The case MS briefed. argued and sub
| mitted by Mr. Ransom on JUly last. and was
| bv tho said supreme Court. 50 lfg last term
/ reversed. and decree rendered in favor of lie
| city
| Tie case of james A. Miller. plaintiff. vs 81
! faembeIs OF the Board ~ Public Works. com
| menced On the Uuited States Court on May s
1ssg. q recover from said ncmbeT. 81 ths
board Tor material advanced for roofing sat
I ing. etc. city bali. involving an amount o
( fsa0.ls. with interest according 20 insiruo
/ tions. W. authorized q emp * counsel ard
I retained "a n Robert u. Monfgomrrr. and fHi
case was by hffn and myself trIed in fh'
/ United states Cont. aEd tHdEmeHt n 81,
| cause ~ action was rendered ia favor of a..
| city. 0u May l4. motion for new trial befer
| Judges Jackson snd severens was argued st,
| submitted ~ E1-]uGge Montgomery and mY
| set which notes was denied. thus deferln a
! ina said cause in favor of tas CITY.
The CASE @ sophia karderio fs. The cts .
Grand Rapids a. action lor damages io