BOOK 20_1945-05-21 to 1946-09-03

Browse Search

• on the equipment sold and dates sold and asked that it be placed on the agenda. In answer to Mayor Hiltonts question as to where the money was deposited, City Manager Mead advised that it had been de- posited to the Water Department, City Attorney McCarthy advised that in the McEnerney Suit which he is con - ducting to quiet title to 75 tax delinquent lots, it is impossible to enter a default against any person unless an affidavit is made that the defendant or 4efendants are not In the military service or that it is not known whether the defendant or defendants are in mi7,itary service. This affidavit is required under the provisions of the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act. The court requires that a separate attorney be appointed to protect the interests of any persons w,ho might be in the military service. City Attorney McCarthy advised that he was satisfied • there were very few persons who would be.in the service but that he could not make an affidavit to this effect. He explained that the court could grant a ,judgment to any person in the military service who had not been given a meritorious opportunity to represent himself. The judg- ment would not affect the validity of any sale but would result in a judgment against the, city. He asked authority to have the court appoint an attorney and advised that provision should be made for a fee to be ' paid this attorney. Councilman Anderson moved that the City Attorney be authorized to have the court appoint an attorney to represent any property owner who might be in the military service at a cost not to exceed $150. The motion was seconded by Councilman Armstrong and passed unanimously. Councilman Anderson moved, seconded by Councilman Armstrong, that affidavits of publication of notice of award of bids under Resolutions of Intention Nos. 1945-1, 1945-20 1945-3 and 1945-4; and Acting City Engineer Clarke's affidavit of posting same be filed. The motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCarthy advised that at the time of the award of bids for the sidewalk improvement proceedings, Mr. Sorensen had raised a question 1 C about the validity of the bond furnished by Mr. Weber. Mr. McCarthy advised that the court does not require a surety bond. He said Mr. Weber had submitted a letter with an attached statement ofyproperty owned by his sister, brother and himself, stating that the sister and brother were the signers of the bond. Mr. McCarthy had examined the statement and believed the bond was in order. He said it was proper for the Council to accept the personal bond unless it desired to have Mr. Weber furnish a corporate surety bond. There was considerable discussion in regard the the advisability of accepting a personal bond, the general consensus being that it would be wiser to require a corporate surety bond rather than to set a precedent by accepting a personal bond. Councilman Granger 21