The Bemidji daily pioneer. [volume] (Bemidji, Minn.) 1904-1971, 1913-09-24
JUDGE STANTON
UPHELD BY THE
SUPREME COURT
Decision In Case Of Arpin Dredging
Co. vs.. J. L. George Favors Ditch
-.- Contractors. 5...
HOLD 1918 LAW CONSTITUTIONAL
County Must Pay $9142.50 Which It
Wanted To Hold Back Until
Contract was Completed.

Contract was Completed.
The decision of Judge G. W.. Stan
ton in the case of the county audi
tor VS.. the Arpin Dredging company
was upheld by the supreme court in
a decision handed down last week
and as a result the county will be
compelled to pay at once the rs per
cent balance amounting to $9142.5O
which it believed it had a right to
retain until the contract was entire
ly completed.
The opinion was rendered by JUS
tice j. Holt and in order to give the
citizens Of the county thorough
understanding of the case parts Of
the opinion are herewith published
showing the contention of both the
county and dredging company.
Syllabus.
1. A respondent is not entitled
to have an appeal dismissed on the
ground that the court was without
jurisdiction to render the decision ap-
pealed from.
2. In public drainage undertake
ings the county is mere govern
mental agency of the state and the
contracts which it is required to
make and the funds it must provide
for such purpose are within the con-
troll of the legislature. Hence chap
ter 567 L. 1913 in its retroactive as,
pect can not be held to impair any
contract obligation or interfere with
any vested rights of the county.
3. Although said statute as to
contracts existing prior2to it's passage
gives benefit to the contractor at
the expense of the ditch fund it is
not clear that the public purpose of
drainage may not be promoted ther-
by. If such purpose may be subser-
we'd the incidental advantage to the
contractor does not render the sta
tute open to the constitutional OBJ
lection that private gratuity is
granted from public funds.
4. The objection to the statute
that the classification therein made
is arbitrary, and that it is special
legislation is without merit.
5. It does not appear from the Pc
tition and writ that REALTORS are in
default or are not entitled to the
amount specified in the engineers
certificate.
Opinion
This is an appeal from an order
overruling separate demurrers inter-
posed by the defendant and the inter-
veneer to petition and alternative
writ Of mandamus. The court below
certified that the question presented
by the demurrers was important and
doubtful
The main facts disclosed by the Pc
tition and writ, and necessary here
to state in order to a proper under
standing of the CONTROVERSY, are
these: The defendant is the auditor
Of Beltrami county. In February
1911 the REALTORS entered into a con-
tract with the counties of Marshall
RI cft 1f ~
judicial ditch No. IL, and gave pro-
per bond for it's performance. The
ditch was to be completed by Deem
Der I, 1912, but an extension of one
year was granted. The estimated
cost of the ditch and roadway on its
banks was about $70,OOO.OO. AS
the work progressed payments were
made to the REALTORS of rs per cent
of the yardage excavated as provided
in the law in force when the contract
was made and as therein stipulated.
The cost of construction apportioned
to Beltrami county was 1913 per
cent and to Marshall county.27 per
cent. On June 80, 1913 the engineer
in charge of the construction issued
to REALTORS and filed with the respec-
tive county auditors certificate con-
forming to chapter SGT of the Laws
of 1913, showing that the contract
price exceeded $30,OO0.OO; that the
total amount Of constructive work
done at the contract price was $48-
892.13; that the total amount of the
estimates or certificates heretofore
issued to the REALTORS for such work
was $36, $4,000; that the balances re-
tanned by said counties upon the work
done amounted to $12,223.02; that
1913 per cent of the whole construc-
ton was complete; that Is per cent
of the balance retained by Marshall
county for the work as far as COM
pleted was $24.75, and by Beltrami
county was $9,142.50; and that in
his opinion no loss will result from
the payment of said sums to REALTORS.
The defendant as auditor Of last nam