The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1902-07-18


for.
That the defendant city, its officer
or agents, have no power or authorit
to expend public funds, raised b.
special assessment Or otherwise, t.
pay for any part of the paving, curb
ing or guttering of said Broad stree
at the intersection of other street
Herewith. and outside.of said lthirt.
foot strip in the center of said Broa'
street.
1t is found as conclusions of law
that the plaintiff is entitled to judg
ment against the defendants.
That that certain contract date
April. 23d, A. d. 1902. and executed
by the Barber Asphalt Paving com
pany by c. M. Carpenter, its attorne.
in. fact, and by j. E. Porter, presiden
of the board of public works of tn
city of Msnkato, and countersigned b.
D. V. Williams, city recorder of sai'
city. of Mankato. herein referred to a
exhibit o, is null and void, and of n,
effect, as against defendant city o
Mankato.
That the defendants their officers
agents, servants and employee
be each and all perpetually restrained
and enjoined from performing TIT
same on behalf of or tor the detendan
city Of Mankato, in whole or in part
That the defendants, their officers
agents, servants and employees, ant
the successors of them or either o.
them be each and all perpetually re
strained and enjoined, from appro
priating, paying out, or authorizing
or causing to be appropriated or pait
out any money or tunds OF the defend
ant city, for the curbing, gutIering,
bouleyarding, paving or otherwise i'm
proving BrCao street in the city Of
Mankato, or any Of the intersections
of other streets herewith, under SAID
contract with said Barber Asphalt
Paving company or under any con-
tract, agreement or understanding
had with said company or any officer
or agent thereof, or for any such work
upon or improvement of sad street or
said intersections heretofore done or
made, now being done or made, or
hereafter to be done or made, as set
forth in. the. findings of fact herein,
and from making, issuing or deliver
ing the bonds, orders, certificates of
Indebtedness, or other evidences Of in
debtedness of said city of any kind
whatever, and from levying, imposing
or collecting or attempting to levy, or
impose. or collect, any general tax, or
special assessment, or any tax or
assessment whatever upon the property
of the plaintiff herein, for the pay
ment of the same or any part thereof.
=. That plaintiff have and recover his
proper costs and disbursements herein
TO be. taxed.
-. That. this decision, and the Judg-
ment. to be-. entered. thereon, shall not
prohibit the individual defendants
herein, from performing said contract
or paying for said. improvements with
their. private. funds, if they 80 elect,
and .shall..not determine. the personal
liability. of any. of said defendants un
der said. contract, if any such liability
there-is, by virtue of general statue,
1894, section 1889. .-.-.-..
Let. Judgment. be entered and render
ed accordingly. 1-.---
= MEMORANDUM. $50
:. Without. devoting time. to-.-the dis
cussion-of. .the.many.- Irregularities in
the. proceedings leading..-upa to the
making. of the contract. herein invol-
we'd, ..there are things..connected with
this transaction. that should be es-
pecially ..mentioned
=, Insview of the financial condition of
defendant.city,s.I cannot believe that
the. defendantssA officers in good faith
that the public interests
would be best served by the making
of this improvement, protested against
by large majority of the interested
property. and involving the
tearing up and rebuilding of portion
of this street.. but recently improved,
at. great expense, and to the satisfac-
ton of the defendant officers.
1t cannot be seriously commended by
the defendants that the financial con-
;. defendant city will justify
the expenditure of any money from
it's current funds for the improvement
Of streets, except where such improve
ment is necessary for the public
safety, and where the demand there
fore is imperative.
Can this improvement as contem-
plated be made. and paid for wholly,
the use of such funds2 1t
seems to us that it cannot.
Not to mention street intersections
not. contracted for, this improvement
s to be made in front of property
owned by defendant city, and fronting
IN such Improvement. approximat ely
three hundred and fifty feet.
The improvement is to cost approx
nately So. 80 per front foot.
1t is testified by every officer of the
,ity whose testimony was taken upon
hose points, that while it was consid-
cred that the city property would be
benefited equally with all other prop
srty fronting on. this Improvement, it
was the fixed intention of all of said
officers, Ito assess. the entire expense
lpon private property SO fronting.
Thin 10 nr.nh q ..ln .;,n. ;.a:.a4;a