The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1903-11-06

for $4,000 for a fall on the platform
of the station at Maple Lake, and her
husband sued for $500. Judge Gid
dings dismissed the cases, but later
filed an order granting them a new
trial. The company appealed and the
order is reversed, SO both cases stand
dismissed. The syllabus states the
cases as follows:
Lizzie Sullivan, respondent, vs. Mime
apolis, st. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie
Railway Company, appellant; and Tim
othy Sullivan, respondent, vs.. Mime
apols, ST. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie
Railway Company, appellapt-tWo cases.:
Respondent visited the station house Of,
appellant company during the evening for
the purpose of finding her husband, who,
she supposed, had gone there to trans
act business with the company. It was
after the regular evening passenger train
had arrived and departed, the depot was
closed to the public and the lights in the
office and on the platform had been turned
out and the agent had departed. The
premises were dark. and in going along
the platform toward the office respondent
stepped into a hole and was injured.
Conceding that appellant was guilty of
negligence in not exercising ordinary care
as to the condition of the platform, re-.
spondent cannot recover for the reason
that under the circumstances appellant
owed her no duty and she went upon the.
premises at her peril.
Order reversed Lewis, j.
jerks Ruling Modified Again.
The decision filed two weeks ago
in the famous jerks bankruptcy case
is modified in a per curiam decision,
and the American Iron Nickel COM
pany, one Of the defendants, gets a.
new trial as to $4,000 shares of stock.
which the lower court had granted to
the trustee, altho not represented by
certificates.
Another general law enacted for
special purpose is upheld in Du-
luth case, where a. taxpayer sought
to enjoin the city from issuing bonds
to build a bridge. as authorized by an
act of 1901: The syllabus follows;
j. j. LIE Tourneau, appellant, VS.. I. w.
Hugo. as Mayor, etc, ct al, respon-
dents:
First-Chapter 75, General Laws Of 1901
authorizing cities having a population of
| more than $4,000 to issue the bonds of
the city to contruct a bridge over a. nav
igable canal within its limits, is not I'M
constitutional special legislation; the
act applies to all cities Of the state hav-
| ing the designated population, and the
| presence of a navigable canal is not an
element of the classification. Such clas-
| sification is authorized by section SO, ar
| ticle q, of the constitution.
| Second-Diamond VS.. Mankato Mimi
| (93 N. w. R., OLD, to the effect that the
| municipal authorities can enter into such
contracts only, where they are required by
! law to let the same to the lowest bidder
as correspond substantially with the
plans and specifications upon which bids
were invited, followed and applied Any
substantial and material departure from
such specifications in the contract pro-
1 posed to be entered into with the lowest
bidder will render the same void. and
| that, too, Notwithstanding the fact that
| it affirmatively appears that but one bid
was presented for the work.
Thrd-In such case the municipal au-
thorities may be enjoined at the suit of
a taxpayer from entering into contract
so proposed to be modified and changed;
and it is not necessary for him to allege
or prove fraud or collision, and that CON
| tractors were in any way deferred from
bidding by reason of the terms prescribed
| by the specifications, or that fair compe-
tition was in any manner prevented
/ Brown. J.. dissenting.
Fourth-The general provisions of the
/ charter of the city of Duluth, requiring
4 all public work to be let to the lowest
bidder apply to the bridge authorized to
be constructed by chapter U.s. General
| Laws of 1901.
4 Order reversed. Brown r