Plaintiff municipality entered into a contract with defendant water company, whereby the latter agreed to construct, operate and maintain mains, pipes and other fixtures for conducting water through certain streets, in consideration of certain covenants and the deposit by the municipality with the company of a certain sum, the company to refund to the municipality certain specified sums when connections were made by property owners, c., and upon the installation of public fire hydrants, there to be no refund to plaintiff after ten years. The deposit was made, the work done, and some refund has been made to the municipality, and it now seeks to repudiate its agreement and recover the balance of money deposited, on the ground that it was without authority to make such contract and that the same was in violation of section 19 of article I of the State Constitution. Held, that the contract had a beneficent and important public object; that there was a valuable consideration for the payment made by the municipality; that the contract was not in violation of the cited section of the Constitution; and that the motion to strike the complaint was properly granted.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Judge Palmer in the Circuit Court.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.