Currie v. Paulson

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Citation45 N.W. 854,43 Minn. 411
PartiesCURRIE ET AL. v PAULSON ET AL.
Decision Date05 June 1890

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where the board of county commissioners, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 174, Laws 1889, inquire into and determine what, if any, signatures to a petition for the removal of a county-seat should be deducted therefrom, and file their certificate thereof, and, according to such certificate, there still remain on the petition sufficient names to authorize the ordering of an election, it becomes the duty of the county auditor to make such order; and the election held in pursuance thereof will not be void because of any error or mistake of the board in determining, upon the evidence before them, what signatures were improperly on the petition.

2. The determination of the board in that regard, at least in the absence of fraud, is conclusive.

Appeal from district court, Murray county; PERKINS, Judge.

H. C. Grass and Geo. W. Wilson, for appellants.

P. P. Smith, B. H. Whitney, Lorin Cray, and J. L. Washburn, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

This is an appeal from the decision of the district court in a proceeding instituted to contest the validity of a special election held, pursuant to chapter 174, Gen. Laws 1889, upon the question of changing the county-seat of Murray county. The case is brought here upon the findings of the trial court, and the only question is whether these findings support the conclusions of law.

The original petition filed with the auditor was in due form, and purported to be signed by what would be, under any construction of the act, the requisite number of legal voters of the county, and was accompanied by the required affidavits. The county board, having, at a special meeting duly held for that purpose, proceeded to inquire into and determine the matters submitted to their determination by the second section of the act, and having concluded their inquiries, made, signed, and filed in the office of the county auditor a certificate that all the signatures to the petition were genuine, that all of the persons who signed it were at the time legal voters of the county, and that all of the signatures were attached within 60 days preceding the filing of the petition in the auditor's office. Upon the filing of this certificate, the auditor, as required by law, made and filed an order fixing the time for holding the election, which was held accordingly, and at which the requisite majority of the legal voters voted in favor of the proposed change of location of the county-seat. No fraud on the part of the county board is charged or found, but the contestants claim that it appears that 256 persons who signed the petition for the change of county-seat subsequently signed and presented to the county board a remonstrance against the change; that this was equivalent to their withdrawing their names from the petition, and therefore the county board should have stricken them off, and not counted them; and that, with these names deducted, the number remaining would have been insufficient to authorize ordering an election. Put in plain words and short form, the contention is that, upon the evidence before them, the board came to a wrong conclusion as to the number of names...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT