The Fargo forum and daily republican., 1913-02-03

Judge Pollock of the district court
has just been affirmed by the North
Dakota supreme court in the decision
he handed down in the case of w. J.
Price vs.. the city of Fargo, protesting
against the contract let by the city
council for the erection of the city
filtration plant. The contract was
awarded to James Kennedy and Mr..
Price brought suit on the grounds he
was the lowest bidder.
The case was decided by Judge Pol
lock in the district court in favor Of
the defendant and Mr.. Price made an
appeal to the supreme court. Since
his removal to Chicago, 1t was rumored
that he had dropped out Of the case,
but that other parties interested in the
matter with him had continued the
proceedings. This, however, was de-
MED this morning by Mr.. Prices at
torneys.
Judge Pollock has also been affirmed
by the supreme court in the damage
suit of Thomas H, Welch VS.. the Far
go Morhead Street Railway Co.,
wherein a verdict was given the plain
tiff for $2,500 and other costs which
brought the amount to a total ap-
preaching $4,000. The defendant ap-
affirmed. Following are the syllabi by
the supreme court in the two cases:
w. J. Price, plaintiff and appellant,
VS.. city Of Fargo, ct al, defendant and
respondent.
l. In the absence of charter or
statutory requirement, municipal con-
tracts need not be let under competi-
tive bidding. In such cases the cor
| porate authorities are only required to
| a n tn In
terests of the municipality.
2. Where bids are requested, but
there is no law requiring competitive
bidding, nor that the contract be let
to the lowest bidder, such contract
need not be let to the lowest bidder,
and where it is awarded to a higher
| bidder, a tax payer cannot have the
contract set aside where there is no
proof of fraud.
| 3. Article 1S, chapter 81, laws of
| 1905 (article 1S, chapter 30, political
| code of 1905), which provides for COM
petitive bidding and the prior estimate
Of probable cost in the case of certain
municipal contracts, does not apply to
municipal contracts for the erection OF
| filtration plants and similar buildings
| (Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court oi
Cass county. Pollock, ].
Action to enjoin the city of Fargo
and city officials Of said city from car
rying out a contract for the erection
of a water filtration plant for said city
on the ground of the illegality of said
contract. Writ denied.
Affirmed.
Stambaugh & Fowler for appellant.
Ball, Watson, Young & Lawrence
Emerson H. Smith, city attorney anC
V. r. Lowell for respondents.
Opinion by Bruce, ].
The WeIch Case.
Thomas H. Welcn, respondent, VS.
Fargo & Moorhead Street Railway
Co., appellant.
l. /. Where there is a substantial con
flict in the evidence, negligence anC
contributory negligence are ultimatel!
questions of fact for the jury, and no
of law for the court. Where, there
fore, a special verdict is submitted IL
personal injury case. it fs not onl.
proper, but necessary, that question:
involving such ultimate facts should b.
submitted and answered.
| 2. Evidence examined and held, II
support findings of jury and the judg
ment of the court.
(SylIabus by the court.)
Appeal from the district court o.
Cass county, Pollock, J.
Action to recover damages for per
sonal injuries received by reason o
the alleged negligence of defendant
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff
Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
} Stambaugh & Fowler for appellant
V. r. Lowell for respondent.
Opinion by Bruce, j.