08/02/1922 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

31.9 Wednesday August 2nd.9 1922 Continued. Hearing had on resolution for Pavement on Carroll Street from Paris Street to Broadway, under Improvement Resolution No. 1010, In the City of South Bend, Indiana. Upon said hearing no remonstrators appeared and no written remon- strance was filed.. The Board being fully advised in the premises, decides that the bene- fits to the property liable to be assessed for said improvements are equal to the estimated cost of the same as reported by the City Civil Engineer, and thereupon takes final action on said resolution as originally adopted and the same is hereby in all things, ratified, confirmed and approved. Resolved further# that notices be published on the 4th. day of August 1922 and on the litkt.1day of August 1922 in the South Bend Daily Tribune and South Bend News Times stating that this Board will receive bids for the construction of said improvement up,to�10:0O A.M. the 22nd. day of August 1922. The Board reserves the right to reject any and all bids. Hearing had on resolution for Pavement on Pagin Street from Hine Street to Linden Avenue, under Improvement Resolution No. 10099 in the City of South Bend, Indiana. Upon said hearing no remonstrators appeared and no written remon strance and the Board being fully advised in the premises. decides that the benefits to the property liable to be assessed for said improvement arty equal to the estimated cost of the same, as reported by the City Civil Engineer, and thereupon takes final action on said resolution as originally adopted and the same is hereby in all things, rati- fied. -confirmed and approved. Resolved further, that notices be published on the 4th. day of August 1922 and on the lath. day of August 1922 in. -the -South Bend Daily Tribune and South Bend News Times; stating that this Board will geceive'-bldi ror- the construction of said improvement until 10:00 A.M. August 22nd. 1922 The Board 7-serves the right to reject any and all bids. Hearing had on resolution No. 1011 for the pipe sewer on Humboldt Street from Blaine Avenue to a point 94 feet west of the west line of Allen Street, under Improvement Resolution No, 1011, In the City of South Bend, Indiana. In the above matter remonstrators appeared but no written remonstrance was filed. The Board after hearing all interested property owners present deferred this hearing until Wednesday'August 9th., 1922 at 7:15 P.M. Xubert Archambeault and other property owners on E . Bronson St. appeared before the Board and requested that a resolution be ordered for pavement on E. Bronson Street from Lincoln Way East to River Avenue. Board ordered a resolution prepared. Petition received and resolution ordered for sidewalk and curb on west side of Miami Street'from Fairview Avenue to Dommoyer Avenue. tlaced on file. The following opinion was received from the City Attorney read and August 2 # 1922 0 Board of Public Works, City of South Bend, Indiana, Gentlemen: - At your request I have examined the attached statement and exhibits submitted by Mr. R. U. Miller, as evidence of his right to occupy a certain alley immediate ly west of and adjoining Lot 66 in Henrick's and Grant's Addition to the City of South Bend I find that the records in the recorder"s office of this County discloses the facts stated by him with the exception.that'there is no record showing the acceptance by the City of South Bend of the Kent and Garrison Subdivision of Out Lot No. 1. I have also viewed the premises in question and°note that at the time Marion Street was paved, on which street Lot No. 10 in question fronts that City recognise theexistance of this alley as,shown by -the fact that the approach to this alley is in- - closed by curbing and is paved. from all appearances the alley has been in disuse for man years by the public and it shows evidence of having been occupied by Mr. Miller as a lawn and garden, but does not appear to have been fenced or to have had any obstruction placed to prevent the use by the public of said alley until the'erection of a garage withi the last few days. The legal question raised by him in short was this: that at the time this land was platted, or rather subdivided, Kent and Garrison owned the fee to this alley and in making their plat did not recognise the alley as being in existance bWt included it with. Lot No. 10 which through successive transfers is now the property of Mr. Miller, that by so doing, Kent and Garrison claimed the title to this land free from any easement or right in the public: that the City an the public generallythrough failing to use this alley, has abandoned it as such and that Mr..Miller and his grantors by occupying it have acquired title through adverse possession.