Little Falls weekly transcript. (Little Falls, Morrison Co., Minn.) 1894-19??, 1897-05-28

this court IL asked to interfere and. de- !
clare the contract void. This court
would gladly interfere, where legal cause
ia shown, to relieve municipalities Or
PERSONS from unjust hardships or bur-
der,s. but We are rs powerIess in this
care AZ we wonld be to relieve an indi-
vidnal from the burdens Of q valid obi.
cation which he has unwisely entered
into. In this Gaze the city encouraged
the organization of the Water company,
induced them to establish an. expensive
plant, and gave it certain rights and
privileges; and also in part considsra-
ton therefor agreed to take and pay Tor
certain hydrant service.
Upon the closest examination and con
sideration of the question involved, We
are satisfied that thegrant to the Water
company or its predecessors when &C.
cepted and acted upon; became an ire
vocable contract, and hat such contract
neither creates monopoly or grants
exclusive franchises and that the city
as well 40 tins court is powerless to set
it aside. or interpolate therein new or
more onprous conditions. Such has
been the well recognized doctrine since
the Dartmouth College case, Wheat 5l6.
This case af1irms the principles govern.
ing the construction Of contracts be.
tween corporations and individuals, and
protects rights, franchis"s, titles, and
usss OF property, acquired by contract,
safely from any alteration or impair
ment. This principle Of law h = become
fixed in Jurisprudence by repeated af-
firmation for long period ofHyears, and
has become venerable because announced
aud maintained during this period. by
the highest judicial tribune in the land,
through the succession of judges en'iuent
for learning and purity OF character.
The security OF property rights rests
upon such we'll established principles,
and every successful enterprise is under
taken in the mistaken belief that it will
never be forsaken. A departure from
this principle in this case would involve
danger to society not to be foreseen,
would shock the sense OF justice OF the
country; weaken, il not destroy, the
credit OF the municipality, in business
circles, as well as the respect which has
always been felt for the judicial depart
ment OF the government. AZ
We have considered this case upon it's
merits AZ requested by counsel, however
we are satisfied that in no event could a
taxpayer MAINTAIN this action. The
theory OF the plaintiffs case is that the
municipal authorities, in entering into
this contract, acted in legislative ca
pacity and not in the exercise Of con-
tractpN powers. Admitting for the
purpoRs Al this case that this is true. the
plaiutln's theory would be destructive
Of his case. IL u a we'll established
principle OF Inv that cosrts will not in
terfere to control legis'a tive aets.
Moede 70. stearne Co., 48 MINI, 313.
II making the CONTRACT and all matters
relating thereto, was w,thia The hgfrla-
tive discretion Of TIE municipality.
courts will not inquire into this discre-
ton. The extent OF the use Of such
powers rests in the discretion of the
council, ana the question Of expediency
is for the municipality and not for the
courts; and their acts cannot be re-
viewed at the instance OF 4 taxpayer.
As before suggested, in the powers dele
gated to the municipality, there was no
restraint imposed upon it's discretionary
use. and the remedy for the evils COM
planned of, must be had in the legislative
bod, itself, and not in judicial tri-
bunal.
rs. E. II; 80 La. Ann. 107.
We note the warning, by way OF ar
gument, OF the plaintiff scounsel, against
the danger Of such powers IN the hands
of the city council. and OF the imminent
and frequent abuse OF the same, but
when the power is once shown to exist
in the municipal corporation, as in this
case, courts are powerless to regulate its
exercise, or dictate what particular con.
tract should or should not be made.
The necessity OF restraining contracting
powers. of municipal corporations, is
the province of the Legislature and not
the judicial department., OF the state
government. With this view of the case
it is net necessary to refer to the effect
of the resolution passed by the city
council, attempting a repeal or RECESSION
! Of the contract in question. If the con-
tract was binding, it could not b. re-
scinded, unless by consent OF all parties
to it, except Tor fraud, therefore there
being neither assent On the part of the
watercompany, norfraud on ;thepa Of
the municipality shows, itisclear that the
contract remained in full force notwith-
standing this declaration OF the city
authorities to the contrary.
~ TIE resol ution in question attempts
4 At