OCR Text |
Show psi'g Jiicli UPHELD BY IHE HIGHER-COURT The Utah supreme court yesterday handed down a decision in the case of George F. Cave and others against Ogden city and the city commission-! ers. The decision upheld the Ogden city commission in action taken as to the paving of Twenty-third street from Washington to Wall avenues. It also t upheld the decision of Judge Nathan J. Harris in tho district court on the legal points involved. The paving case, which caused a good deal of comment at the time, was! first hoard in the district court. George F. Cave and others protesting property owners, appealed from decisions deci-sions of the city commission in reject- I ing certain signatures alleged to rep-I rep-I resent property fronting on the street I in question. Various contentions were raised as to the right of these persons to sign the protests against the paving. Another protest was brought against the commission considering the frontage front-age of the railroad companies as affecting af-fecting the total number of lineal feet In the paving district. The supreme court considered but two of the protests, as that number was sufficient, according to the law, to decide the case. The ruling was that the city bad gained jurisdiction and that the paving was done legally. Copies of the decision were received by the parties interested yesterday, shortly after the decision was announced an-nounced in Salt Lake. ' The decision upholds the city in con-! con-! sidering the frontage of the railroads a part of the total frontage on the street, setting out that the railroad company pays taxes and is therefore to be considered the same as all other taxpayers. Rejection of other property by the city is upheld on various grounds. These are instances where the property prop-erty title rested with other persons than those claiming ownership, but who were not shown by the records of the county to actually and legally hold full title. There is an instance "where! an individual signed for a corporation, although not specifically authorized to do so. Concluding the decision, the su-,prome su-,prome court says: "As before stated, the entire frontage front-age in the district is 3,862,6 linear feet. Necessary to prevent the city acquiring Jurisdiction, 2.575.6 feet; total protests filed, 2,631,4, or 55.8 feet in excess of the number required. We have already shown that 27.5 linear feet protested by Emily Pcrrv Shanks and 66 linear feet protested by the Mutual Creamery company, were properly rejected and not counted. With these amounts deducted from the protests filed we have less than two-third protesting against the proposed pro-posed improvement. The protests not considered are. therefore, immaterial in view of the conclusion reached. "Tho judgment of the trial court la affirmed. Respondents fb rooover costs." . ' , nn |