Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1899-10-08
VICTORIOUS At LAST
BENEFITED PROPERTY OWNERS
MUST PAY FOR PAVING.
Supreme Court Hands Down Decision
in Favor Hf the City-An Appar-
ent Defeat Terminates
in Victory.

City Counselor T. a. Pollock. of Kansas
City. kas.. received word from Topeka
yesterday morning announcing that the su-
preme court had rendered Il decision in
favor of the city in the James street paw
ing injunction suit. This means that the
property owners along the thoroughfare
above mentioned must pay for the paving
of the same instead OF throwing the cost
upon the city at large. The decision is an
important one. as it settles all doubt to
the city's right TO demand "a maintenance
bond from contractors receiving public
work.
James street was paved with brick from
the Fowler packing house 10 Central ave-
nue., in 1894. After the work had been COM
pleted. some of the property owners along
the street sought to evade the cost of the
Improvement by lnstituting injunction pro-
ceedings in the local court to enjoin the
collection of special taxes for the pave
ment on the grounds that the mayor and
city council made the contract void by de-
mandIng a maintenance bond. The con-
tract contained Il clause which provided
that a bond should be given the city to
guarantee the faithful fuliillment OF the
same. BY the maintenance bond the con-
tractor obligated himself TO the city 10
keep the pavement in good repair for five
years and TO replace any and all defective
material used in the Improvement of the
street.
The property owners on James street
We're made to believe that the city could
not legally demand such Il guarantee from
the contractors. and in demanding the same
IL lnValidated the contract calling for the
work. Upon this belief suit was instituted
i'll the court of common pleas to enjon the
collection of the taxes levied for the pay
n ent of the paving. The case was tried
before Judge Anderson. who was then judge
OF the common pleas court. He decided IN
favor of the property owners and granted
an injunction against the city. An appeal
was taken by the city TO the court of ap-
peals, where Judge Anderson's decision was
sustained. The city again appealed. taking
the case into the supreme court, where Il
achieved a final victory yesterday. the
effect of yesterdays decision will be that
the city-at-large will escape paying S13, go
which the lower courts had saddled upon II.
The case was bitterly fought by the al
torneys for the property owners, as a grea
deal more was involved than the cost of
paving James street. Similar suits are now
pending to enjoin the collection OF taxes for
the paving of Seventh street. Kansas ave
nue. and other streets. and in each instance
| the maintenance bond point is raised. How
ever. in these other cases other points are
raised. one of the principal ones being that
the Law under which the work was let li
unconstitutional.
The decision handed down yesterday oc-
casioned much JOY on the part of City
Counselor Pollock and City Attorney
Hutchings. They fought the case for the
city with the two lower court decisions
against them. After the court of appeals
decided against the city. members OF the
administration lost courage, and IL was
generally believed that a serious error had
bonds from contractors doing public work.
| Messrs. Pollock and Hutchings are desery-
| ing of much credit for the able manner in
| which they handled the litigation.