The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-09-18
THE W. W. RITER SUITS
CITY ATTORNEY arKAY RECOlI-
MENDs a COMPROMISE
The Case Has Many Interesting Fea-
lures Growing Out of an Excess
siye Sewer Recommendations
McISay's Suggestions.

City Attorney Mckay has recommended
to the council that the suit OF ". ".
Ritter against the city. and which has
been pending in the courts for some time,
be compromised. The amount involved
IS not so very large, but there are many
interesting features TO the case which
grew out Of an excessive assessment for
sewer construction. the city now being
called upon to refund the amount paid
INTO its treasury in excess OF the actual
cost, together with interest.
Mr.. Ritter together with some eighty
four other property owners on First South
street between Second and Eighth East
streets, and streets branching therefrom,
We're assessed in the year 1892 the sum OF
70 per front foot for the purpose OF con-
structlng a sewer in front Of their prop
erty- Upon the completion of the sewer,
these parues GAINED Jna1 the actual cost
thereof was Sl.o6 per front foot and no
more They petitioned the city 10 refund
- thenl the uneXpenced balance, tO-w1t:
Sill; this the CITY council refused. and
expended said balance Tor other purposes.
4nereupOn eighLy-1Our of said claimants
assigned their demands 10 the plaintiff.
W. W. Ritter, and IN October, 1893. Mr.
4tiJer commenced his action against the
city for the sum of -. $500 being the
rate OF SlH per front foot for 6,4gJ feet,
me total amount claimed by these parties.
In April. 1884, the city council claimed that
lle sewer cost $2-lz per foot, and offered
70 refund ~ cents per foot. During the
year 1894 sevenJy-tiVe of those persons
who had assigned their claims to the
plalntlm accepted the city's offer Of IS
cents per foot and received city warrants
Tor the amounts to which they We're re-
spSclINely emitted under this Ofler. These
SeVenty-ilVe persons represented 4gS1 feet.
In making this refund the then city OFF,
clals neglected TO take release of the
several causes OF action which these per-
sons assigned to plaintiff, and took no
stipulation or agreement that the suit.
IN so rar as they were concerned, should
be dismissed The city simply took u
receipt Tor the amount Of money paid out
on this account In other words, the city
paid the asslgnOrS Of these various claims
after notice that said claims had been
assigned to the plaintiff Ritter, for a
valuable consideration and that suit was
tnen pending thereon.
CITY ATTORNEYS VIEWS
In his report 10 the council City Attor-
ney Mckay includes the above statement
and continues
In view of this state Of facts. the ques-
non IS not entirely free from doubt
Whether the city might not be compelled
10 pay this IS cents per foot upon 1881
leVl second time. The number Of feet
represented by the ten persons who re-
fused to accept the city's offer Of IS cents
per 1901 aggregate 1.5l0. The case was
so AOA tAldl Oh the IVlH inst. and on that
day this Office. in behalf of the city. offer
ed TO refund to plaintiff S1.0S per front
loot FOR the 1,5l0 feet upon which no set
uement had been made. This amount was
determined upon after an inspection of the
Omclal records in the city engineers
oHiee, which shows that the average cost
OF Ihe sewer was SI.g2 per foot. 1t was
also agreed that the city pay three and
ohe-haH years interest at the rate of
per cent. per annum upon the sum found
que and also $3.50 additional in considera-
ton OF the dismissal Of the remaining
seVenty-hYe causes Of action and the
costs, which amount TO the sum of S.. 10.
4hiS proposed comprOm Sc has been agreed
TO BY the counsel for the respective parties
IN a stipulation covering a settlement OF
the Whoie case and including the follow
ing items: 1.5l0 linear feet of sewer at
sLuo, Sl,55QS0; three and one-half years
interest or Sl63G.S0 at 9 per cent S45662:
total S26L4; amount to be paid for dtE-
nlssal OF seVenty-five causes Of acucN1.
Sz9O; amount Of costs, $3.50; aggregate
amount S2.375.52
1t was further agreed that the costs
should be paid Immediately. and the bal
aHce, to-wlt: S2331.42. should be paid in
caSh on or before November 10 1895. or in
time for the parties in interest 10 use the
money Tor the payment of this years
In view of az the circumstances.
oeem the foregoing disposition of this
case a favorable one for the city and
respectfully recommend its adoption by
IN this connection I desire TO suggest
thdt hereafter all moneys raised BY special
assessment for the construction of sewers.
Sidewalks, paving, etc. etc, be set apart
as q special fund instead of placing the
amount IN the general fund as heretofore.
Money raised by special assessment does
not IN any proper sense belong to the
city. 1t is money belonging TO the
abutters for whom the city merely acts
as trustee. Wnen the Improvement for
which the fund has been raised. is com
pleted and paid for. and a balance re-
mains as in this case. such balance should
ne Immediately refunded to the parties
VINO originally contributed it. ratably and
In proportion as their respective interests
may appear A refusal to refund or an
application of such balance to another use
cannot be defended in morals If it can
Millinery Opening.