Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1898-11-25

Full Text Of the Supreme
Court Light and Water
Decisions, 5

ACClS
We give below in full the opin-
ions written by Judge Mitchell of
the Minnesota supreme court on
the light and water cases. These
opinions, which were endorsed by
the entire court, are worth read
ing by all interested.
THE WATER CASE.
JAMES G. FLYNN,
Appellant,
Va. Opinion.
LITTLE FALLS ELEc-
Trio & WATER Co.,
Respondent.
The present city Of Little Falls was
orgauized first as village Tsp. Lave
: 1879 Oh. g. with the power to estab-
lish such regulations for the prevention
and extinguishment OF fires as it might
deem expedient, and afterwards as a
city tsp. Laws 1889 Ch. 81 with power
to erect water works for the supply Of
water to the city and it's inhablt ants
or to grant to third parties the right to
erect water works for the same purpose
and to lay water pipes and mains in the
streets Of the city in accordance with
ssuch terms and conditions as might be
agreed upon.
In January. 1889, the village counci
passed an ordinance which, as subse-
quently amended by the common coun-
Gil OF the tity, granted to certain per-
sons, their successors or assigns, for
thirty years the privilege OF laying
water pipes and mains in the streets OF
the city on the following, among other,
terms and conditions. The grantees or
their successors were within two years
to have water works OF a specified ex-
tent. capacity and power, constructed
and ready for use and connect a specified
numb;r !, t fire hvdrants with the water
mains. The c,nmon council to have
thereafter the right to order an extension
OF the mains along other streets which
could be reached by continuance of
existing mains, the wnter com,'any to
= put in fire hydrants ut specified dis
tances along such extensions and to
supply water at established rates to the
inhabitants along the streets where the
pipes were extended. The grantees were
to MAINTAIN the mains and hydranrs
ready for use for fire protection and op-
- crate the water works after their COM
pletion for the full term OF thirty years.
For the use OF these hydrants (which
proved to be IS in number) the city was
to pay $50 each per year for the full
term OF thirty years.
The city was to have the right to take
- from the mains water to supply all
buildings occupied bv it for public pnr-
poses. The water company was to fur
nisl the city until March 1st, 1914,
with ~ other hydrants lin addition to
the 55) aud in consideration therefor
the city was to pay all taxes a>sessed
~ for city purposes on the water work.
during the thirty years and give to the
company the use OF certain water power
owned by the city.
The ordinance provided for its ac-
ceptance by the granteps within sixty
days upon which it -honId constitute a
contract betweel the parties which
should not be altered or amended except
by mutual consent. The grantees as
signed all their rights and privileges
under the ordinance to the defendant,
the Little Falls Electric & Water Power
company. ~ .&5 :s.5.9 VI.
The ordinance was accepted by the
Lrantees and the water works cons
structed<and put in operation and pre-
sumably, in he absence of any allega-
tion to the ntrary. the water company
has complied with all the terms and
conditions of the ordinance. III %.
IN duuiUiOH ~ ouI Ao'06O1ne5 r'oSc0 tAe
complaint alleges that the needs OF the
city do not, never have, and will not for
years, require greater number Of hy-
drants than IS, that $50 pqr hydrant
per year is an unreasonable aud ex-
orbltant price aud at least $40 per hy-
drant per year higher than the reason
- able value thereof, that the city and its
officers claiming and pretending that
this ordinance is o valid and binding
covtract are paying the Water company
$50 per year for each Of the 8 hydranthe &
and intend to continue to az go unles.
restrained by court. he plamint ain mntifi'i t 4
is that the ordinance, 81