The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-11-14
CITY LOSES
 PAVING SUIT Hull Street Citizens Get
 a. Decision. OPINION BY JUDGE sAYRE Property Owners Objected to Use
 of Brick. Court Holds That Ordinance and COn- tract Awarded Under it Are In-
 valid--Cass win Be
 Appealed.

If the Alabama Supreme Court sus- tains a decree rendered yesterday by Judge A. D. Sayre. of the Equity Court, South Hul1 Street win not be paved with brick For the present at least. The result will be a declaration that the contract entnred into by the City Coun- gil with thu Southern Paving and Con- struction Company. July 3, 1908, for laying vitrifled brick on South Hull Street. ls invalid. & The war. against brick paving and in favor of asphalt paving on this street, which found it's way into the Equity Court, will have been won uItil the City Council awards contract for the pavement in conformity with the courts decision. @
 In his decision yesterday iii the case of c. W. Barnett and others against the City Council of Montgomery and the Southern Paving and Construction Company. Judge Sayre found legal flaws in the ordinance and contract for paving South Hull Street with brick and he pronounced the contract in- valid. It was his opinion that by the terms, an unlawful burden would be imposed upon the property owners of South Hull Street in maintaining the proposed paving for a period of ten years. The contract, he declared was void also because 1t differed materially AA0AA %AC pE0pOS4AE AnNAEGu Oy IWG dQ- vertisement He ruled with the com plainants throughout and overruled the demurrers to the bill and motions of the defendants to dismiss the bill for want of equity. His decree has no bearing on the baby bond act of Mont gomery.
 Judge sayre,a Opinion.
 The full opinion of Judge sayre is
 The above entitled cause coming to be heard at this term, was submitted Tor decree on the sepafate motions of the defendants to dismiss the bin there in for want of equity and upon the sep arate demurrers of the defendants to said bill And upon consideration it Is She opinion of the court that the or chance and contract for the paving of Hull Street are invalid for that they impose an unlawful burden upon com piainants and other owners of property conttguous to said street, In that they are required to pay for the mainten- ance of the proposed paving during a period of ten years, which in law can pc made q charge against the general revenue of the municipality only; and further that said contract is void because it differs materially from the propos- als invited by the advertisement; and is therefore, of opinion that the said motion to dismiss the complainants' bill and the said demurrers thereto should \ be overruled
 ' Tt Is therefore ordered, adIudged and decreed by the court. that the said separate motions of the several defend l ants, and the said separate dLmnrrers | to thes bill in this cause be- and the same are hereby overruled. Defend | ants have thirty days in which to an. swer if they shall be so advised While the decision of Judge Sayre d1aa mt aaauain rfV dfsnoaa ne tho 1ogo in the city court in equity, it Is ac- knowledged by counsel on both sides that his opinion has practically set ed all matters in dispute in the iow- er court and so Tar as the law is in question, the case has been closed in this court. In his decree, Judge Sayre allowed the defendants thirty days in which to file an answer to the original bill but an answer, 1t is believed, will hardly be necessary. The clse, according to counsel, will go to tle Supreme Court at once for a de- c sion on the demurrers and motion 1o dismiss.
 ] Opponents of Paving.
 ! Litigation, in opposition to the lay ing of brick pavement on South Hull street, was inaugurated August 24, when G. W. Barnett W E. Haygood. lGeorge Laurie, Mrs. Jane M. Fuller and Hattie Fl. Stay, property owners on South Hull street. filed a bill in the equity division of the city court Iagainst the City Council and the pay ing company, praying for final de- for an injunction restraining the city 'om paying out any money or issu- ing any bonds for paving South Hull E.reet under this contract.
 Counsel for the property owners con- t,nded that the contract was in excess of the power and authority of the City Council and that it was void for two reasons. The first reason assigned was that the advertisement for bids stipulated ''all bids to be of ten years 2 larantee maintenance" while 1t was 6 legged the contract actually entered alto was for two years maintenance. The second reason set forth was that ale Council had no right to contract for future repairs.
 [ Counsel for the city and the con- e.ruction company contended that the a alvertisement for bids, calling for ten \ oars guaranteed maintenance, made 10 reference to the plans and specifi- cations on file in the city engineers ( nce, which provided for a two years guaranteed maintenance It was also clntended that the city did have the T ght to contract for future repairs 5i the manner set forth in the con act.
 1 Arguments on these points of law were heard by Judge Sayre Wednes- day morning and he took the case under advisement, rendering his de- cree yesterday
 The case has been of widespread in- a,rest to all property owners of Mont g ,mery and a decision from the Su- | 'eme Court will be anxiously awaited
 When the matter of paving South Hull street was pending In the Coun- cl many of the property owners on 1Ie thoroughfare who will pay for ale work protested against the use C. brick and in favor of asphalt but ale Council decided to pave the street with brick.
 other Equity Cases.
 Judge Sayre entered orders In other equity cases yesterday as follows:
 william Crawford Vs. J. W, Aber' cror,hie exceptions filed by complain