Will v. City of Bismarck
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of Burleigh County, Honorable W. L. Nuessle, Judge. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. The power to make public improvements and to impose the cost of the same upon a particular- portion of the people of the state declared to. be benefited thereby is a sovereign function originally inherent under ■constitutional authority in the state. These powers may be by the state delegated to municipal corporations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of Burleigh County, Honorable W. L. Nuessle, Judge. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. The power to make public improvements and to impose the cost of the same upon a particular- portion of the people of the state declared to. be benefited thereby is a sovereign function originally inherent under ■constitutional authority in the state. These powers may be by the state delegated to municipal corporations. The extent of such powers is a matter of judicial construction. Dill. Mun. Corp. 5th ed. § 239. The power to lay out, open, grade, and improve streets…
1Opinion of the CourtBirdzell, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court of the sixth judicial district, dismissing a complaint and denying-to the plaintiffs the relief sought in an action brought to enjoin the performance and effect of a cancelation of a paving contract entered into. between the city of Bismarck and the Ford Paving Company, for the paving of certain streets in paving district No. 2 in the city of Bismarck. The case is here for trial de novo and was argued on April 17th.. The appellants demand a review of the entire case. Most of the facts are contained in documentary evidence adduced at…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Salt Lake City v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
- Gearty v. . Mayor, Etc., of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Richison v. MeadSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899
- Walter v. McClellanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
- Knopfi v. Gilsonite Roofing & Paving Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Twohy Bros. v. Ochoco Irrigation DistrictOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Murphy v. City of BismarckNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1961
- Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. City of MinotNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924
- Boynton v. Board of City CommissionersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1926