The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-01-25

| of Incorporation, constitution and by
| laws, provided that the city council
should, by resolution, authorize such pay
ments. This resolution was thereafter
adopted by the council and payments
v ere made aggregating 0,000 The as
socIauOn also received over $4,000 from
members and legitimately disbursed
little over One-SIXth of the entire sum
accumulated. 1t then attempted to amend
its bylaws and to permit withdrawing
Numbers to each receive a certain sum
OF money out of the treasury in addi-
ton to all amounts heretofore paid in
by them. After $1,000 was withdrawn in
this way the court restrained flIrthe"
pa yments upon Withdrawals and adjudg-
ed the amen lment illegal. Proceedings
were then commenced by majority of
! the members to dissolve the association,
terminate it's existence and wind up it's
affairs, and a decree of court was there
upon entered dissolving and ending the
same and a receiver of its money was
APPOINTED, one of the appellants herein.
The city was, with others, notified to
/ tile it's claim, If 1t had any. Its officers
| refused to act in any manner, and there
upon the court permitted taxpayer to
| intervene in the winding up proceedings
and to file claim in behalf of the city
! fer the amount heretofore paid to the
| treasurer of the association under the
| law of 1901, less such part as had been
| properly disburSed Held that when the
association took the money it was with
the prescribed conditions annexed to the
I! gift; that the transaction was in the
nature of a resulting trust, and that upon
failure of the trust by the dissolution
| OF the corporation the amount on hand
! which had been paid ever by the city
! reverted to it. And held that the court
| properly allowed the taxpayer to inter
| Vene and to present claim against the
! association, and that it was not neces-
| sary for such taxpayer to institute
| separate action to recover the money.
Tied further. that the appellants in this
! action, the receiver and the members
! Of the late association, are in no position
/ to urge the elementary proposition of
| law that a court will not permit a trust
why the intervenor's complaint failed to
state cause of action. Order affirmed.
Collins, j.
Bank Is EstOpped.
Anton H. Rostad appellant, VS.. Union
| Bank of ST. Paul, respondent.
| In an action brought by the payee of
! check against the bank on which it
| was drawn and in which the maker had
sufficient funds when payment was de-
manded, but which funds had been gar
4 nished in an action against the maker,
! it is held that on the admitted facts de-
| PENDANT bank is estopped to deny it's liza
bility for the amount of the check. Judg-
/ ment reversed. Collins, J.
Cannot AnnuI Contract.
Edward L. Reed ct al, appellants, VS..
| The City of AHoka ct al, defendants
Anoka Water Works. Electric Light
and Power Company, respondents.
l. The charter of the. city of Anoka
| confers upon the municipality. in sub
stance, (a) power to make and estab-
lish public pumps, wells, cisterrs and
hydrants, and to provide for and control
/ the erection of water works for the sllp-
| ply of water for the city and its inhab-
| itants: Cb) power to provide for lighting
( the city with electricity, gas, or other
/ means, and to control the erection of any
| works for that purpose, and to grant to
| cOrnOr9tiOn DQrSOn right n
occupy it's streets for that purpose. Held
that such provisions of the charter in
vest the municipality with power and
authority to enter into contracts with
! private individuals for the purposes
! stated.
2. Entering into such contracts and
i granting franchise to individuals does
not involve an exercise on the part of
the municipality of its legislative or gov
ernmental functions, as respects the
rates and charges to be paid the grantees
Tor performance OF the contracts, or
otherwise but only its proprietary or
business powers; and the rules and prin-
/ ciples of law applicable to contracts and
transactions between individuals apply
thereto.
| 8. The authority given municipalities
to enter into contracts of this character
confers upon the local authorities large
discretionary powers, with the exercise
/ of which courts will not interfere unless
clearly abused; unless contracts made.
! by them are unreasonable, inequitable
and unfair.
A. Contracts of the nature of those in
! question in this action are not, merely
from the fact that they cover period
| of thirty-one years and definitely and
finally fix the rates and charges to be
| paid the grantees for the full period.
prima facie void as unreasonable and
| unfair. They are prima facie valid, and
/ in the absence of showing of unreason-
! ableness, must be upheld
8. The question whether the necessities
! of municipality justify a contract for
so long period of time, and the fair
ness and reasonableness of the terms
| thereof. are addressed to the sound judg-
ment of the, municipal officers: and as
such officers are presumed to act within
! the scope of their authority and for the
| best interests of the municipality they
represent, the burden to impeach the con-
tract is upon the person who calls it in
! question
g. Flynn VS.. Little Falls, "A Mimi, $50,
distinguished. Order affirmed
Brown, ].
Question of Rent.