Evans v. Hughes Cnty.
| Citation | 6 Dak. 102,50 N.W. 720 |
| Parties | Evans v. Hughes County. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1888 |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Hughes county; James Spencer, Judge.
Action by Fred T. Evans against Hughes county to recover amounts paid by plaintiff's assignor to defendant under an alleged illegal lease. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The complaint alleged that William P. Ledwich, being the highest bidder for a certain ferry privilege, received a seven-years lease therefor from defendant county; that he had paid the sum of $1,800 thereunder; that he assigned his interest in the contract to plaintiff; and that the county had no power or authority to grant the lease, and that its implied warranty of title to convey same had therefore failed. Pol. Code Dak. c. 29, under the authority of which the lease was granted, provides (section 54) that etc. Section 55 provides that “the board of county commissioners of the county to whom application shall be made for a ferry in the manner hereinafter provided are hereby authorized, and it shall be their duty, to grant a lease of such ferry, for a term not exceeding 15 years, to such person or persons who shall bid and secure the payment of the highest amount of rent for the same,” etc.
H. E. Dewey, for appellant. Coe I. Crawford, for respondent.
The judgment in this case is affirmed (1) because the respondent had a right to lease the ferry privilege to Ledwich, the assignor of the appellant, by virtue of its police power, and in so doing did not violate the provisions of section 1889, Rev. St. U. S.;1 (2) because there was no such privity of contract existing between the parties as would enable the appellant to maintain this action against the respondent. All of the justices concur.
1. Rev. St. U. S. § 1889, provides that “the legislative assemblies of the several territories shall not grant private charters or especial privileges,” etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nixon v. Reid
...or especial privileges.” It might be sufficient to say that the territorial supreme court passed upon this question in Evans v. Hughes Co., 6 Dak. 102, 50 N. W. 720, and held the law was not in conflict with the organic act. But, as the decision in that case was a memorandum decision, we sh......
- Evans v. Hughes County
-
Evans v. Hughes Cnty.
...parties was passed upon and judicially decided by the territorial supreme court, the predecessor of this court, for it is fully reported in 6 Dak. 102, 50 N.W. Rep. 720, where the pleadings are very fully reproduced. If this former judgment had been pleaded, or even if this court were at li......
-
Nixon v. Reid
...charters or especial privileges.” It might he sufficient to say that the territorial supreme court passed upon this question in Evans v. Hughes Co., 6 Dak. 102, and held the law was not in conflict with the organic act. But, as the decision in that case was a memorandum decision we shall br......