Village of Hartington v. Luge

50 N.W. 957, 33 Neb. 623, 1892 Neb. LEXIS 11
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 4, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 50 N.W. 957 (Village of Hartington v. Luge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Village of Hartington v. Luge, 50 N.W. 957, 33 Neb. 623, 1892 Neb. LEXIS 11 (Neb. 1892).

Opinion

Maxwell, J.

The plaintiff filed a petition against defendants as follows:

“The plaintiff for cause of action alleges:

“ 1st,' That it is a corporation existing under the laws of the state of Nebraska and lying and being in section 36, township 31 north, of range 1 east, in said county, and desires to annex to its corporate limits the contiguous territory hereinafter described, and that for the purpose of such annexation of such territory the trustees of said corporation, plaintiff herein, did, on the 14th day of January, A. D. 1887, at a special meeting of said trustees held in said village of Hartington, vote upon the question of such annexation of such contiguous territory, and a resolution to annex such territory, to-wit, the west half of said section 36 and the west half of the east half of said section 36, T. 31 N., R. 1 E., hot now included within the corporate limits of the said village of Hartington, was adopted by a two-thirds vote of all the members elect of such board of trustees.

“2d. The said plaintiff further shows and represents unto your honor that the defendants, Henry Luge, M. E. Luge, E. L. Dimick, H. A. Moore, T. L. Curris, Albert Street, George F. Scoville, Mrs. Letta Thomas, T. G. Thomas, August Lubeley, the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis Omaha Railway Company, and the Northern Nebraska Land Improvement- Company are the only owners of said territory, and the only owners of said territory. That an accurate map of the same, showing the subdivisions of said territory, together with its relative positions of such [625]*625said village of Hartington, is hereto attached, marked exhibit ‘A/ and prayed to be taken as a part of this petition.

“ 3d. The plaintiff further says that for the purpose of protection from fire, preserving health, order, cleanliness, of said village, and for the purpose of helping to raise the revenue or taxes to help defray the expenses of said village, would in justice and equity require the annexation of said territory to said village.

4th. The plaintiff further shows unto your honor that other material benefit and advantages, besides those mentioned in preceding paragraph three, will be derived from such annexation by reason of said territory lying across and obstructing the approach and egress of the public and the citizens of said village to and from the said village of Hartington to the public highways adjacent to said territory, therefore, for the purpose of acquiring such benefit and equity, the board of trustees of said village of Hartington, L. H. Monroe, P. A. Yan Dorn, G. McGregor, D. C. Clark, did, on Friday, January 14, 1887, at a special meeting, by a two-thirds vote, adopt the resolution for such annexation which is in words and figures following, to-wit: ‘ Special meeting of the board of trustees of the village of Hartington, held at their office in the village of Hartington on Friday, January 14, 1887, after due notice of the same, and the purpose being first given to each member of the board at the proper time and place aforesaid, the board of trustees of the village of Hartington met in special session as aforesaid, the following members of the board being present: L. H. Monroe, chairman; P. A. Yan Dorn, G. McGregor, D. C. Clark, and the clerk thereof, Chas. Plumbleigh. The object and purpose of said meeting was called for the annexation of contiguous territory of the corporate limits of the village of Hartington. After discussion of the object of the call the following preamble and resolution was adopted:

[626]*626“ Whereas, owing to the limited amount of territory now included in the incorporation of the village of Hartington it is adopted by the board of trustees of said village that justice and equity demand the extension of said incorporation ; therefore, be it resolved, by the board of trustees of the village of Hartington in special session that the following territory be annexed to the present incorporation of said village described as follows, to-wit: All of that portion of land or territory lying and being in the west half of the east half of section 36, township 31 north, of range 1 east, and now not included in the present corporate limits of said village of Hartington/

“Said D. C. Clark moved the adoption of the said resolution, which motion was seconded by said G. McGregor, whereupon the roll was called and voted as follows: Ayes, L. H. Monroe, P. A. Yan Horn, G. McGregor, H. C. Clark, being the unanimous vote of all the members of the board in favor of the adoption of said resolution. Charles Plumbleigh, clerk of the board.

“The plaintiff further states that part of said territory has been subdivided into lots, blocks, streets, and alleys and platted by the defendant, Northern Nebraska Land & Improvement Company; that a part has been subdivided into small portions and sold to the owners, other defendants. Wherefore plaintiff prays for the annexation of such aforesaid territory, and a copy of the decree of said court duly certified under the seal thereof, together with a plat of the territory, with a proper description thereof, so be decreed to be annexed, showing the same subdivided as shown by the plat hereto annexed, marked exhibit ‘A,’ shall be filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk, of said county, in the proper records of said county clerk’s office, and plaintiff’s costs.”

The answer of the defendants consists of certain specific denials and an allegation of want of benefit to the defendants. On the trial of the cause the court made the following findings:

[627]*627“ This cruse coming on to be heard upon the petition, answer of the defendants, the Northern Nebraska Land & Improvement Company and August Lubely, was submitted to the court, in consideration whereof the court finds that the village board of plaintiff has heretofore adopted a resolution to annex the territory described in the petition by a two-thirds vote of all the members' of said board; and the court further finds that such of said territory as is hereinafter described, will receive material benefits by its annexation to said village of Hartington, and that justice and equity therefore require the annexation of that portion of said territory hereinafter described, to-wit: All of the west half of section 36, township 31, range 1 east, excepting the south half of the southwest quarter of. said section 36, township 31, range 1 east; also all that portion of the west half of the east half of said section 31, township 31, range 1 east, lying west of the east boundary line of the present corporate limits of plaintiff, and the prolongation of said line, excepting the southwest quarter of said section 36, township 31, range 1 east, all in Cedar county, Nebraska.”

The court thereupon rendered judgment accordingly.

The statute provides: When any city or village shall desire to annex to its corporate limits any contiguous territory, whether such territory be in fact subdivided into tracts or parcels of ten acres or less, or be not so subdivided, the council or board of trustees of said corporation shall vote upon the question of such annexation, and if a resolution to annex such territory, describing the same in general terms, be adopted by two-thirds vote of all the members elect of such council or board of trustees, said resolution, and the vote thereon, shall be spread upon the records of said council or board.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kriz v. Klingensmith
125 N.W.2d 674 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1964)
City of Wilber v. Bednar
242 N.W. 644 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1932)
City of Russell v. Ironton-Russell Bridge Co.
60 S.W.2d 628 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1932)
MacGowan v. Village of Gibbon
144 N.W. 808 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1913)
Marsh v. Village of Trenton
137 N.W. 981 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1912)
Village of Wakefield v. Utecht
133 N.W. 240 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1911)
Bisenius v. City of Randolph
118 N.W. 127 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1908)
Commonwealth Real Estate Co. v. City of South Omaha
110 N.W. 1007 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1907)
Village of Syracuse v. Mapes
76 N.W. 458 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
Sage v. City of Plattsmouth
67 N.W. 455 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 N.W. 957, 33 Neb. 623, 1892 Neb. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-hartington-v-luge-neb-1892.