The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-08-31
WRIT OF MANDATE
WILL NOT ISSUE
Carlson and Sanborn Lose
Their Sidewalk Suit Against
the City of Ogden.

A decision Of vast Importance to prop
erty-owners was handed down by Dis
trict Judge Howell yesterday in the case
Of Joseph l.. Carlson and Fred f. San
born VS.. ogden City and City Engineer
A. Z. Parker. The court denied an ap-
pication for a writ of mandamus and
also sustained the demurrer of the defend
ants. The action was brought TO deter
mine the rights of private parties TO lay
sidewalks after the city had acquired ju-
risdictiOn by the first publication or It's
notice Of intention to do this work.
on July 9 the city council passed an or
dnance setting forth that when a notice
of intention TO build sidewalks in any
district is published, it shall be deemed
that jurisdiction is acquired by the city
to do the work from the date OF tne llrs5 5
publishing of the notice of intention and
until the hearing of the protests shall fin
ally determine the jurisdiction II also
provided that on the date of the first
publication Of the notice of intention no
permits shall issue thereafter and all per-
mits before issued for sidewalks in that
district shall expire and become void.
On July 81 Carlson applied to the city
is a licensed contractor. to bulld walk
in front of his property as provided Tor
in a notice Of intention published Tor the
first time July 1, and requested that the
city engineer furnish the necessary stakes
and grades. Mr. Parker. however. refused
30 grant the permit IL was then that an
ipDCal was MADE TO the courts lOI Il VIII
If mandate against the defendants com
handing them to issue the permit. which
had been refused.
The decision Of the court was in part
as follows:
.aTo make it positive and certain that
there shall be no such distractions in the
q 'strIcts in which sidewalks are to be
constructed TO obviate the difficulties
necessarily arising therefrOm. it is per
fectlv proper for the city TO provide not
only that no private contractors shaH he
engaged In the work OF building SIDEWALKS
when the City'S contractor commences MS
work but that no private contractors
shall be engaged in such work for rea-
sonable time prior thereto, and certainly
twenty days cannot be said 10 be an I'M
reasonable time.
..Moreover. it cannot be said that the
interests of the owners of abutting prop
ertv are unduly infringed upon by such "a
requirement. because for the whole period
of time that a person may own property
within the city, he has right TO nave
sidewalk I'm front of his premises con-
structed by any licensed contractor whom
he desires TO employ and it is only when
the CITY finally makes up its mind TO pro-
coed with the work itself when II takes
the initial step to create a sidewalk dis
trict. that he is deprived Of such right.
This provision of the ordinance, then,
as to the revocation Of permits upon the
first publication Of the notice OF inten-
ton to create a sidewalk district. being
reasonable Is valid. and in this particular
case after the first publication or the no
tice of intention. which was on July Il.
1906 the plaintiffs were not entitled 10
have the permit issued to them. and
therefore the city engineer was justified
in refusing TO so issue II, Wnen appneu
for on July 81, 1906. and all tnese Iac 's
application of the plaintiffs and they not
constituting facts sufficient 10 entitle the
plaintiffs to the relief for which they
Drav the demurrer 10 said petition ana
application upon that ground should be
sustained.