Sykes v. City of St. Cloud
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Steams county, Searle, J., denying a motion for a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Steams county, Searle, J., denying a motion for a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion. At the trial the court charged the jury in substance, among other things, that in order to entitle plaintiff to recover he must satisfy them by a preponderance of evidence that the waterworks company furnished water in all its hydrants, for which plaintiff claimed compensation, by means of a waterworks system in substantial compliance with the contract requiring the waterworks company constantly, day and night, except in case of…
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
The city council of the city of St. Cloud, a municipal ■corporation, passed an ordinance September 12, 1887, known as “Ordinance No. 74,” the same being “An ordinance providing for the ■sale of the waterworks of St. Cloud, to Henry W. Phelps, E. T. Sykes .and David D. Brooks, of the city of Minneapolis, state of Minnesota, .and for the extension of said works, and defining their rights, privileges and powers,” which said ordinance was approved by the may- •or, and was published and took effect September 22, 1887.
The portions of said ordinance necessary to be here taken.particularly into…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wiley v. Inhabitants of AtholMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
3Cited by11 opinions
- Flynn v. Little Falls Electric & Water Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- United States ex rel. Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk & Co. v. Shea-Adamson Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1937
- Skowhegan Water Co. v. Skowhegan Village Corp.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1906
- Universal Company v. Reel Mop Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
- Blakely v. J. Neils Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.