Minutes 1945 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

� � � `�� 21 • on the eq_uipment sold and dates sold`and aeked that it be placed , on the agend�.. In answer to Pdayor HiZton � s question as to �vhere the money was deposited, City Pdan�er �e�.d advised that it had beai de- ' poslted to the 49ater Department. , City Attorney b4cCarthy advised that in the McEnerney Suit vrnich he is con- ductin� to quiet title to 75 tax delincluent lots, it is impossible to enter a default a�ainst ar�y person unl�ss an afficiavit is made that ' the defendant or<defendants are not Sn the military servioe or that it is not knotien whether the defendant or defendants are in mil_itary aervice. This afiid�.vit ia reo,uired uncler the proviaions of the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act. The court rsquiree that a separate attorney be appoi_nted to protect the interests of any nersons tidio might be in the military service. City Attorney PdcCartny advised that he was satisfied • there were very few persons c�ho s�ould Ue in the aervice but that he could not make an affidavit to_ this,� He er.plained that the court could grant a judgment to ar�y person in the military service who had not been �iven �. meritorious op�ortunity to represent himself. The �udg- ment �vould not affect the v�].idity of any s21e but ��ould result in a �udgment a�ainst the city. He asked authority to t�a.ve the court appoint an attorney ancl advised that provision should be made for a fee to be ' paid this attorney. Councilman AnderEOn moved that the City Attorney � be authorized to have the court appoint an attorney to represent any property orner vrho might be in the military aervice at �, cost not to exceed �150. The motion was seconded by Councilman Armstrong and ' passed unanimously. Councilma.n Anderson moved, seconded by Councilman Armstron�, that affidavits of publication of notice of a;=ard of b ida under Resolutions oY Intention � Nos. 1945-1, 19�+5-2, 1945-3 and 1945-4 t3nd.A�tir� City En�ineer Clarke�s affidavit oi posting same be iiled. The motion passed unanimously. City Attorne3r �ZcCartY�y ad�rised that at the time of the a�v�,rd of bida for the sidev+alk improvement proceedings, t�4r. Sorensen had raised a question about the validity of the bonc� furnished by f: LVeber. Adr. PdcCartY�y ' advised tnat the court does not require a surety bond. He said P.�r, Weber had submitted a letter 4�ith an attached statement ofr�property otivned by hia sister, brother and hir�self, stating that the sister and brother �vere the ai�ners of the bond. Mr. BEcCarthy had exemined the atatement and believed the bond was in order. He said it vJas proper for the Council ' to accept the personal bond unless it desired to hzve &Ir. Y�eber furniah a corporate surety bond. There was cons+_der�.ble discussion Sn regard the the advisability of accepting a personal bond, the general coneenaus bein�g that it vrould be vaiser- to require a corporate aurety bond rather than to set a precedent by accept?ng:a personal boncl. Councilman Grenger � \