Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-01-09
! Important Decisions ;
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES

4 AAA IVA S1AAS
e>>>eoe%>e~~seSS~%@%ee$>e<
NIUNlCIPALlllES
Defendant city entered into con-
tract with one j. j. d.. for the con-
struction of u portion of a water tun-
mel under the surface Of the ground
extending distance Of about four
miles. In making the excavation dyn-
amte was used by the contractor, to
the extent that the building of plain
tiffs' was Jared and shaken so that the
walls We're cracked and caused to set
tie, finally falling into such dam
gerous condition that the city, thru its
building commissioners, notified the
plaintiffs to repair the same within
five days, and in default of their doing
so the city would proceed against them
according to law. The contract in ques-
ton contained clause that all labor
performed should be subject to the in
specton of the commissioner of public
works. Held, that under this clause of
the contract the city was liable for
negligence of an independent contrac-
tor in doing the work and plaintiffs
are entitled to recover
Chicago VS.. Murdoch, ~ N. e. 46
Ull)
STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
In January, 1895. an ordinance was
passed in the city of Chicago for the
paving of certain stree; in that city,
between certain points, the roadway to
be so feet in width. In November Of
into for the construction of the inn
;s,
made, it was found that the Street
Railway Company was willing to pay
for the paving Of the central sixteen
feet on the street in question. There
upon an ordinance was passed widen
ing the roadway between uhe points
from so feet to ga feet ana the street
was then paved, by an arrangement
made with the contractor, with a road
way 81 feet in width. After the con-
firmation of the original assessment,
several of the property owners appeal
ed to the supreme court, seeking a re-
versal of the Judgment of confirmation
on technical grounds. which was gran
ted. The result was that sufficient
money was not collected under the or
iginal assessment to pay for that por-
ton of the improvement which was
not paid for by the street railway
company. The purpose of the present
proceeding was to collect money to
meet this deficiency. Several Of the
property owners objected. Held, that
the improvement of a street with
roadway Ga feet wide is not the same
Improvement contemplated by an ordi-
nance providing for paving 1t with a
~,
company had agreed to pay for Is feet
in the middle of the street, and the
property owners are not liable for an
assessment for making the Improve
ment Chicago VS.. Ayers, 72 N. e. 80
Qll.).
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
In 1894 defendant had erected a large
structure in Brooklyn, eight stories
high above the street. The greater por-
ton of it had never been occupied UNI
til the lease made by plaintiff. In
June, 1898, the plaintiff rented Of the
defendant by written lease a portion OF
said building, to be used as a store for
the sale of clothing, etc, and later took
possession and moved his stock of
goods in. About two months later, the
municipal authorities instituted pro-
ceedings to compel the defendant to Sc
cure or take down said building, alleg-
ing it to be unsafe and dangerous to
the public and at the same time took
possession of same and prevented the
public from having access TO the same
After a trial of this proceeding the
court directed the commissioner of
buildings to tear down the upper three
stories of the building. Plaintiff then
brought this action to recover the rent
paid in advance and for damages sus-
tanned. Held, that where the lessor
concealed defects in building which
the lessee could not discover by reason
able diligence, it constituted fraud
and plaintiff was entitled to recover.
steefel vs. Rothchild, 70 N. E.. 112 On.
Wy