Standard Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis

• Decision Date: 12 June 1925
• Docket Number: No. 24629.,24629.
• Citation: 163 Minn. 418,204 N.W. 165
• Parties: STANDARD OIL CO. v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

204 N.W. 165

163 Minn. 418

STANDARD OIL CO. v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS et al.

No. 24629.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 12, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; W. C. Leary, Judge.

Mandamus on relation of the Standard Oil Company to compel the City of Minneapolis and others to grant a license to erect and maintain a gasoline filling station. From a judgment for defendants, relator appeals. Affirmed.

Cobb, Wheelwright, Hoke & Benson, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Neil M. Cronin and Thomas B. Kilbride, both of Minneapolis, for respondents.

QUINN, J.

Mandamus on relation of the appellant to compel respondents to grant to it a license to erect and maintain a gasoline filling station at the intersection of West Broadway and Fremont avenue, in the city of Minneapolis, upon a certain site, leased by it for that purpose.

An ordinance of the city provides that no building shall be erected for the storage or sale of oil or powder, within the limits of the city, unless the party desiring to erect such building shall have obtained permission from the city council authorizing the same, and the inspector of buildings shall not grant permit for any such building or structure, for any such purposes, until such permission is so obtained.

On December 15, 1921, appellant made written application to the council for permission to erect such a station. At that time it was negotiating for a lease of the lot from the owner thereof. A license was granted to the appellant on December 30, 1921, the lease was finally obtained on January 9, 1922, and on March 29, 1922, the building inspector issued a permit for the erection of a tin-on-stud structure. On April 7th, nine days after the permit was issued, the council, without notice to appellant, revoked the license. In August, 1923, the appellant filed a new application for a license with the council, which was, by that body, referred to a committee of the fire department. A protest, signed by 60 property owners in the locality, was presented and thereafter referred to the aldermen of the ward in which the site was located, and the same was then referred to the fire committee and, on January 23d, that committee recommended to the council that the application be denied. On January 25th, the council denied the application.

By this action the appellant seeks to compel the council to issue, to it, a license to erect and maintain such a filling station upon the site mentioned. It is contended that it is entitled prima facie to such a license and that, in revoking the first license, the council acted without cause and without giving appellant notice and an opportunity to be heard upon the matter and that, in denying its second application, the council acted arbitrarily, unlawfully, and with discrimination, thereby depriving appellant of its property rights without due process of law. Upon the other hand, it is contended that the erection, maintenance of such a station on the site mentioned, and the carrying on of such business therein, would be a nuisance, in the way of creating an extra fire hazard and in congesting traffic in the streets.

The site is at an intersection of two heavily traveled streets. The streets...