The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1926-03-24
SUPREME COURT
SUSTAINS OLSEN
IN ROAD CASE
HIGH COURT RULES DISTRICT
JUDGE WAS RIGHT IN DENY
ING REFUNDS ON SANB0RN
ROAD,

Ing REFUNDS On SANB0RN
! ROAD.
! Last Friday the state supreme
court handed down a decision sus-
tanning district Judge, |. M. Olsen in
denying certain refunds to Sanborn
, village in what is known as the "San-
born road case" While Sanborn viii
lage was the appellant in the case
three townships along Trunk High
way No. A, New Avon, Charlestown
and Willow Lake, were also interest
ed, and no doubt had joined issue with
the village for the decision concerned
them also.
In line with a good roads policy
adopted by the Redwood county board
many years ago Sanborn village and
adjacent townships appropriated about
one-fourth of the cost of building a
state road from Redwood Falls to
Sanborn. The road cost about $780,
900.
Sanborn village and the three town.
ships in question aided on the road
to the extent of $13,755.30 on work
done prior to February 1, 1919 and
$4,000 on work done subsequent to
that date.
Later on when this improved road
. had been extended through other
counties federal aid was granted to
the extent of 43,742.13 of which $780,
114.03 applied prior to February l.,
1919 and the balance after that date.
The date happens to be important on
account of certain provisions in the
Trunk Highway law establishing the
Babcock road system.
This same road, at one time known
as state road No. 10, became a sec
ton of Trunk Route No. A, when the
Good Roads amendment was adopted.
The state highway department was
therefore obligated to take over all
outstanding bonds against this road
for work done since February L,
1919.
Hence the county received from
the federal and state government re-
endorsements to cover full cost of this
road since February /, 1919. Under
a decision made by Judge Olsen, Red
wood County must refund to Sanborn
| and other contributors such aid as
they gave on this road subsequent to
that date, but the appeal was made
! for refundment of moneys.,spent prior
to the date in question and it is
upon that point that the county wins.
Federal aid amounted to .564 per
cent of the cost of the road prior to
the time the state took over the obli-
cation, and Sanborn village demand
ed return of 56.4 per cent of her
aid, which with the amount involved
with the townships, would total re-
fund of s7,757.
The argument was made that the
road building was partnership af-
fair and that the aid should apply on
met" and not gross" cost. The
courts did not sustain the partnership
contention. They held that the NUM-
cipalities appropriated this money
to the county to get the better roads
and must hold to their agreement re-
CARELESS of the amount Of aid the
county secured except that the coun-
ty could not profit on the transac-
ton.
Under the plan used in this coun-
ty practically every village and town.
ship helped in building improved
roads and in that way good roads
benefits were spread more generally
and promptly throughout the county.
It was singular circumstance that
on the piece of road involved in this
case the county should later have
received both federal and state aid.
1t covered nearly three-1ourths of the
cost of the road and epaoled the coun.
ty to gravel other improved roads
sooner.
County Attorney George Barnes
handled the case for the county while
Somsen, Dempsey & Flor were coun-
sci for the appellant.-Morgan Mes
senger.