Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1900-06-22
80 =
JUDGE loChren's Decision.

JUDGE loChren'S Decision.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, DIS
TklCT OF MIMI sofa.
Fourth Division.
Little Falls Electric & Water Com
pany
City OF Little Falls, Charles E. Vas
ally, as mayor; Frank E. Hall, as
city clerk, and AlOysius Simonet,
as treasurer, of said city. and
Edward c. Lane, Henry Hill,
Carl E. Carlson. Thomas j.
Martin, George F. Moeglein'
Jerome Mecusker and Nels Peter
son, as members OF the common
council Of said city.
DECISION.
Final hearing in this suit was had
on March p, 1900, upon the bill,
answer, and the evidence taken in
the cause. From the admissions in
the answer, and from the evidence
presented at the hearing, it appears
that all the allegations Of matters 4.
TACT contained in the bill are true
as therein set forth. 1t was con-
ceded by the defendants council on
the hearing that all the works and
appliances constructed by the com
plainant AMI constituting it's water
plant and electric lighting plant, at
the city of Little Falls, were efficient
and fully complied with all of the
provisions, stipulations and cOndi-
tons OF the contracts between the
complainant and the defendant city,
under which these plants were
erected and esta blished, and that
complainant has at all times per-
formed it's contracts and obligations
us alleged in the complaint. Since
the common cement of this suit the
common council Of said city
has, by ordinance, granted to the
complainant the right to continue
and maintain it's water main upon
the bridge across the. Mississippi
river; SO that the matters alleged in
subdivision VIII OF the bill need no
longer be considered, excepting in so
far as that paragraph may state
matter OF equitable jurisdiction, ex-
listing at the time the suit was begun.
AS to the allegations Of conspiracy
and confederation to injure the
credit OF the complainant and to
destroy the value Of it's property, an
inspection OF the ordinances and res
OlutiOns of the common council,
commencing with the ordinance
passed over the mayors veto. April
4, 1896, assuming to abrOgate and
take away all the franchises and
contract rights OF the complainant,
while refusing to pay for water and
light received and used, shows a
settled and persistent purpose by
unlawful means, to disable the com.
plainant from carrying on it's bust.
ness, destroy it's credit and the value
OF it's property; and to coerce the
complainant to sell it's water and
light plants to the city for the in
adequate price offered. The acts of
the defendant city and it's officials
admit OF no other explanation.
The contracts under which the
water and light plants were con-
'structed and operated appear to- be
valid and should be enforced. The
village council, and subsequently
that OF the city, was authorized and
empowered to contract for the con-
struction OF such plants and for the
supply OF water and lights for public
uses; and had the right to grant the use
OF streets for such purposes. This
is conceded, but it is claimed on the
part OF the defendants that the con-
tracts were invalid, because made
for an unreasonable length OF time,
at rates to be paid which were I'M
reasonably high.
Contracts Oh the part OF a munic-
ipality for the supply to the munic-
ipality and to it's citizens Of water
and light, are not made in the exer
else Of the governmental powers
vested in the municipal council. but
OF it's proprietary or business powers.
1t is acting for the private benefit of
itself and it's Inhabitants, and it's
contracts OF that character are gov
erned by the same rules that govern
contracts of private individuals and
corporations, Illinois Trust com
pany VS.. City OF Arkansas City, %
G. C. A., 1856, and cases cited.
There is in this case no allegation
or pretence OF any actual deception
or fraud on the part OF the COM
plainant or it's grantors in obtain
ing the franchises and contracts
from the village or the city; or of
misconduct or unfaithfulness on the
part OF the village or city councils in