Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1905-03-21
PERMANENT INJUNCTION TO BIZ
ISSUED ON DECISION REM
DERED BY JUDGE ROBERTS.
SAVES CITY $4,000
Decision Rendered In District Court In
J. P. Swanson VS.. City Of ottumwa
Injunction Sweeping Victory
In Favor Of clty-city Also Wins VI
Riprappins Suit.

From Mondays bali,
A permanent injunction restraining
the city of Ottumwa from further pay
mont of either principal or interest on
the $4,000 bond issue donated to the
Chicago, Ft. Madison & Des Moines
Railway company about twelve years
ago, will be issued within a day or two
| upon q decision Of Judge M A. Rob
erts in district court Saturday after
noon, declaring in effect that the en-.
| tire bond issue Is null and void.
| At the same time decision was also
handed down refusing the Injunction
asked for by B. w. Dimmitt, restrain
ing the city from constructing the pro-
posed riprapping along the south bank
Of the Des Moines river
The decision of Judge Roberts in the
Ft. Madison bond case will save the
city of Ottumwa $4,000 In principal
and about $4,000 more in interest. The
decision in the second case will en-
able the city to proceed unmolested
with the work of building the rip-
rapping along the Des Moines river
with a view Of protecting the South
Side from the danger of damage BY
floods.
Messrs Mitchell and Hunter were
the attorneys for Mr.. Swanson and
Captain w. H. G. Jaques for the city.
They all pooled their issues and pulled
| together. The attorneys for the bond
holders were Messrs. Dillon and Hub
bard of New York City, Lane and
Waterman Of Davenport, and Baker
and, Ball Of Iowa City, and
\ the general attorney for the
National Life Insurance company OF
II Vermont. Especial credit Is due to
Attorney j. G. Mitchell who conducted
the case from the time of it's filing and
presented the matter before Judge
Roberts.
The Riprappng Suit.
The injunction against the city to
prevent the riprapping along the Des
Moines river was filed by b. w. Dim-
mitt who claimed to be the owner Of
property in Central addition which
would be damaged by the construction
of the riprapping.
History Of Bond Case.
instituted in our district court pro-
ceeding in equity to enjoin the city
from paying either principal or inter-
est Of the $4,000 Of bonds donated to
the Chicago, Ft Madison and Des
Moines Railway Co. A temporary in-
junction was granted as prayed for,
Mr.. Swanson getting into court along
with the city owners of $4,000.
The owners answered the petition
of Mr.. Swanson and thereupon Mr..
Swanson demurred to their answers
l and the city joined with Mr. Swanson
In his demurrer. The demurrer was
submitted to Eichelberger, and he
sustained It, Immediately. thereafter
: the owners of the bonds filed an
amended answer, and filed cross-pe-
/, titions, asking for Judgment against
! the city on the bonds.
!, To the amended and to the cross
! petitions Mr.. Swanson and the city
Joined in demurrer, which demurrer
after and extended pro and con was
last Saturday sustained by Judge Rob
erts.
Null and Void.
The decision of Judge Roberts on
the demurrer renders the bonds and
the attached interest coupon abso.
y lutely null and void. and thereby the
> city is saved, including principal and
!, interest, something like $4,000.
I Doubtless the owners Of the bonds will
/, appeal to the supreme court, but coun-
: sci for Mr.. Swanson and the city seem
to have not the slightest fear Of the
correctness of the decision of Judges
Eichedberger and Roberts, and seem
: to have no doubt that the supreme
n court will sustain their decisions.
!, The Opinion.
The opinion handed down by judge
Roberts and upon which the perman.
\ ent injunction will be isued is as fol-
lows:
In the district court of Wapello
: county, Iowa.
January term 1905
]. P. Swanson
VS.. Ruling on demurrera
: City of Ottumwa ct al.
Three questions are presented by
the demurrers to the answers and
cross bills of Thomas Lambert anc
the National Insurance company, to-
wit.
!. First-Are the bonds In question
= valid and binding against the city as
n negotiable instrument?
,s Second If not. are they valid and
binding as non-negotiable instrument.
r Third = If not, then, can the hold
- ers thereof receive in this case as IL
" common counts?"
D. At this late hour am unable to pre-
n. nara an pyfppdad opipfor, Az, e,,p,,ort -