Adams v. City of Minneapolis
| Citation | 20 Minn. 438 |
| Parties | J. F. ADAMS v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS. |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1873 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
A. N. Merrick, for appellant.
Cooley & Lowry, for respondent.
The present city Minneapolis, the defendant, was formed by uniting the city of St. Anthony and what may be called, by way of distinction, the old city of Minneapolis. This was not done by the simple annexation of either of the two latter cities to the other, but by the merger of the two in a new corporation. See defendant's charter, chapter 10, Sp. Laws, 1872, passim. If the case had been one of simple annexation of the territory and inhabitants of the city of St. Anthony to the old city of Minneapolis, the latter might have retained its identity as the city of Minneapolis notwithstanding the enlargement of its boundaries, and the increase of its population. But the effect of the merger is, that the present city of Minneapolis has swallowed up the old city of Minneapolis, so that the identity of the latter is lost, and it has ceased to exist.
By sections 4 and 5, subc. 9, of defendant's charter, it is, however, provided that "when the city council (of the present city of Minneapolis) shall have organized, the functions [sic] of the city council of the city of St. Anthony and the common council of the old city of Minneapolis shall cease to have or exercise any further powers.
This action is brought against the present city of Minneapolis to recover damages for injuries to the person of the plaintiff, claimed to have been sustained on or about the twenty-ninth day of June, 1871, in consequence, as is alleged, of the negligence of said city, in suffering a sewer in a public street to remain open, without proper safeguards. But the incorporation and organization of defendant having occurred in 1872, as is shown by its charter, (which is declared to be a public act,) the complaint fails to show that the negligence and injury complained of occurred after the defendant came into existence, for which purpose the allegation of time is material. Lockwood v. Bigelow, 11 Minn. 117, (Gil. 70.) The fact is, as agreed by counsel, that the negligence (if any) was that of the old city of Minneapolis. For this negligence the plaintiff's right of action (if any he had) is undoubtedly preserved by sections 4 and 5, supra. But as the defendant is not identical with the old city of Minneapolis, and upon the face the complaint does not (for the reason given above) appear to have been itself guilty of the negligence complained of, the complaint should (if it is sought to charge the defendant) state facts showing liability on the part of the old city of Minneapolis, from which the liability of the defendant, if the view which we take hereafter is correct, is to be inferred as a conclusion of law. For its failure to state such facts, the complaint fails to state a cause of action against defendant, and the demurrer should therefore have been sustained.
This conclusion would dispose of the present appeal; but as the complaint can, and doubtless will, be amended so as to remedy the defect pointed out, it is important to go further, and determine the vital question involved in the present controversy, and that to which the argument of counsel was principally directed. That question is, whether the plaintiff's right of action, (if any he had,) for the negligence of the old city of Minneapolis, exists against the present city of Minneapolis, the defendant.
By section 1, subc. 1, of the defendant's charter, it is enacted, that the people inhabiting the territory of the present city of Minneapolis "shall be a municipal corporation, by the name of the `city of Minneapolis,' and by that name shall sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded in any court, make and use a common seal, * * * take and hold * * * all such real, personal, and mixed estates as the purposes of the corporation may require, * * * and...
To continue reading
Request your trial