Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/886

 what closer, though the record leaves it indefinite as to its location. It appears that the sewer is so constructed as to admit of connections being made, although it does not appear that blind connections have in fact been inserted. At the conclusion of the hearing, the following resolution was passed:

“Whereas, the petition of Nels K. Mogaard and others, praying for the exclusion of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter (S. E. 4 S. E. 1/4) of section seven (7) in township number one hundred forty- eight (148), range eighty-four (84) McLean county, North Dakota, from the limits of the city of Garrison, North Dakota, and,

“Whereas, the said petitioner, Nels K. Mogaard, and his counsel R. L. Fraser, appeared before this council at its adjourned regular meeting, this 10th day of September, 1921, and before this council presented testimony with reference to the said petition, and,

“Whereas from the testimony presented and from the personal knowledge of each and every member of this council, it is determined and decided that there has been established and now maintained, upon the said tract of land, a portion of the main line of the sewer system of said city, so constructed as to admit of sewer connection at any point thereon for the use and benefit of any person or persons so desiring, and,

“Whereas, the outlet of the said sewer system of the city of Garrison, does not extend upon or over the tract of land mentioned and described in the petition filed, but does extend over and upon other land belonging to the said city, and,

“Whereas, the best interests of the city of Garrison and its future development require that said proposed land be not excluded from the limits thereof:

“Therefore it is resolved:

“That the said petition be and the same is in all things hereby denied.

“On roll call the following named councilmen voted aye: J. A. Reuter, Joe Fitzgerald, Joe Mahowald, W. F. Richards. Nay:

“W. M. Robinson, Mayor.

“Attest: E. E. Wacker, City Auditor.”

After the decision of this court holding adversely to the petitioner upon his attempt to exclude 35 acres of the tract in question so arbitrar-