The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-02-13
OWNERS WIN
 PAVING SUIT City Loses South Hull Street Case. SUPREME COURT DECIDES IT Says Contract for Work is Null
 and Void. Upholds Ruling of Judge sayre that Municipality Lacks Power to Carry Out Terms of
 Agreement.
SUPREME COURT DECIDES IT

Property owners on South Hull Street between washington Avenue and South Street. who nave been engaged In llt- tgation to prevent the City Council from paving that street with brick. yesterday won their contention. when the supreme Court handed down an opinion that the contract tor the work winch the Council had let to the Southern Paving and constructin ConI- rany of Chattanooga, Tenn. was null ana void.
 The opinion was written by Justice Simpson. and concnrred in bv Cher Justice Tyson and Justices Haralson and Dowdell.
 The opinion, which is of considerable length, goes thoroughly into the case. detailing the circumstances under which the ordinance authorizing the paving of the street was passed by the city legislative body. and, certain changes wniLh were made in specifications in the award of the contract which were not in accord with the original adyer- tisement for the work sent out by the City Treasurer. It held the city lack ed the power to make the contract as 1t was made. and to use the money derived from the sale of bonds to cover the cost Of paving .n the manner pro- posed by the ordinance.
 It will be remembered the Council let the contract for the, work to tho Southern Paving and Construction Company over protest in the form of a petition signed by a number of property holders along the portion of South Hull Street. which 1t was pro- posed to pave. c. W. Barnett, w. E. Haygood. George Laurie. Jane M. Full Ter and Hattie H. Stay instituted lro- ceedings In he City Court in Equity to enJoin the city and the contracting firm from beginning the work. In the original complaint. 1t was alleged the contract was let upon terms not stated in the advertisement from the City Treasurer Inviting bids. and, therefore. the contract was null and void. By decision of Judge Sayre in the lower tribunal. the position of the plaintiffs was he'd to be good.
 In this opi~ion the jr dge of the City Court held thar the contract wolld im- pose an unlawful burden on the conn plainants and other owners of prop erty as they would be required ,o pay for the maintenance of the proposed paving for ten years. whereas the charge for the maintenance should be against the general revenue fund of tue city. The contract. he helj. was void, also. because 1t differed from the proposals invited by the advertise. ment.
 The city appealed to the Supreme Court, where the opinion of Judge sayrc was affirmed. Following is the text of Justice Simpsons opinion in full:
 Text of Opinion.
 'srhis bill was filed in the City Court in Equity of Montgomery by the appelIes. as owners of property on Hull street. and as taxpayers of the city of Montgomery, seeking to have declared null and void a certain con- tract of paving said street, to restrain the City Council from paying out any money thtreon, and from issuing cer- tain bonds and from fastenin gon the property of compliments any assess ment of liability on account of said im- provement ss 4
 ''The Act of the Legislature authoriz- ed the City Council to pave, or other wise improve said street (with oth- ers.)
 ''rhe city charter requires that 1t