The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-06-11
ASKED TO RESTRAIN.

We are asked to restrain the clerk of the
common council from certifying to the Sc
lect council any action awarding the con-
tract to Dunn Brothers, and to restrain
the select council from receiving such
certificate from the clerk and from act
ing upon 1t.
The defendants demurred to the plain
tiff's bid on the ground that the bid does
not set forth such facts as entitle the
plaintiff to a standing in a court Of equity;
that the matters complained Of are the in
terlOcutory proceedings of legislative
body and are not subject to correction and
supervision by the court, and that tho
facts set forth, II true. do not constitute
an injury in law.
The main questions involved in this case
are:
|. U Has the plaintiff any rights, in the
present status Of the proceedings OF the
council, which entitle 1t to maintain bill
and to invoke the restraining power OF an
injunction?
co Was the action of the common coun.
ell, in reconsiGering the question Of award
ing the contract referred to, illegal?
(3 II illegal, Is the wrong Of such ma
ture as to be properly subject to the cor
rection of a court of equity?
1t is contended on the part Of the de-
obscure or non-observance of the rules
regulating the procedure of the councils
in their legislative acts. and the case Of
Kilgore against Magee and others 81 Pa.
401, is cited to that effect. 1t Is there de-
cided that an alleged disregard CT the
forms of legislation required by the coh-
stitution in the passage OF q law Is not the
subject of judicial inquiry, and that when
a law has been passed and approved and
certified in due form. the courts cannot go
| behind the law as duly certified to inquire
into the observance OF form in its passage.
ITDoEs NOT APPLY.
This is true as to enactments by the leg
| islature of the state. but 1t has been eX-
| pressly ruled in Altoona city against Bow
man, III Pa. 301. that the presumption
in favor of the constitutional regularity
| Of proceedings of the legislative depart
| ment of the government does not apply
| to the regularity and legality OF the pro
| ceedings OF municipal corporations. We,
| therefore. hold that court Of equity may
inquire into the regularity Of municipal
| proceedings, and that we are not inc!uG-
| ed by the certificate of the proper ofticcr.
But there are other difficulties in the
case now before us. There Is yet no COM
| plete legislative act on the part OF the
councils touching the paving contract
There is no action by both councils. The
proceedings are in the interlocutory stage
Can we interfere before final action by the
municipal authorities? I do not propose
to decide this inquiry now. The defend
ants have filed demurrer, and according
to our practice the parties are entitled to
be heard on the demurrer at Argument
court.
am, nevertheless. clearly of the opin.
ion that the preliminary injunction grant
ed in this case should be dissolved. The
contention of the plaintiff is too doubtflI
to allow the continuance Of the. injunc
ton, and in accordance with the wcll-es
tablshed principle that preliminary IN
junction should not be continued in
doubtful case, the rule Is discharged anc
the preliminary injunction heretofore al
lowed is dissolved. The merits Of the cas-
can he considered UPON argument Of thu
demurrer