Flynn v. Little Falls Electric & Water Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
On Reargument. January 30,1899. Action in the district court for Morrison county by plaintiff in behalf of himself and all other taxpayers of defendant city against the city of Little Falls, its mayor, clerk, treasurer, the members of its common council and the Little Falls Electric & Water Company to enjoin the city and its officers from continuing to carry out the provisions of a certain ordinance.
Read the full summary
On Reargument. January 30,1899. Action in the district court for Morrison county by plaintiff in behalf of himself and all other taxpayers of defendant city against the city of Little Falls, its mayor, clerk, treasurer, the members of its common council and the Little Falls Electric & Water Company to enjoin the city and its officers from continuing to carry out the provisions of a certain ordinance. From an order, Baxter and Searle, JJ., sustaining the demurrer of defendant company to the complaint, plaintiff appealed. The contract is invalid because it attempts for a term of years to…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The present city of Little Falls was organized first as a village (Sp. Laws 1879, c. 6), with the power to establish such regulations for the prevention and extinguishment of fires as it might deem expedient, and afterwards as a city (Sp. Laws 1889, c. 8), with power to erect waterworks for the supply of water to the city and its inhabitants, or to grant to third parties the right to erect waterworks -for the same purpose, and to lay water pipes and mains in the streets of the city, in accordance with such terms and conditions as might be agreed upon. In January, 1889, the village council…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- VIDAL v. Girard's ExecutorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
- Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. City of Arkansas CityCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
- Nichols v. WalterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Richman v. Supervisors Muscatine CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1889
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Cedar Rapids Water Co. v. City of Cedar RapidsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- State ex rel. Ellis v. Tampa Water Works Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1908
- St. Cloud Public Service Co. v. City of St. CloudSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- State ex rel. Board of Education v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. Minnesota Transfer Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.