Anderson v. City of Montevideo
| Decision Date | 08 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | 20,476 - (247) |
| Citation | 162 N.W. 1073,137 Minn. 179 |
| Parties | JOHN O. ANDERSON v. CITY OF MONTEVIDEO AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action by the administrator of the estate of Carl S. Starbeck in the district court for Chippewa county to cancel a lease of the municipal building, and to restrain defendants from entering into another lease. The case was tried before Qvale, J., who made findings and ordered judgment dismissing the action. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Appeal from judgment without settled case -- what reviewable.
1. On an appeal from a judgment, where there is neither a bill of exceptions nor a settled case, the only matter that will be considered is whether the findings sustain the judgment.
Injunction -- lease of municipal building -- ultra vires.
2. A citizen and taxpayer may not invoke the restraining power of a court of equity to enjoin the officers of a municipal corporation from leasing a building not needed for public use, unless it is shown that such municipal corporation and its officers are acting ultra vires, and where such unauthorized acts may affect injuriously the rights of those complaining.
Municipal corporation -- lease of auditorium.
3. Where a municipal corporation, in good faith, erects a building for municipal purposes, and includes therein an auditorium which is no longer needed for public use, and the leasing thereof will lighten the burden of taxation, the municipality has a legal right to lease the same for private use.
Fosnes & Fosnes, for appellant.
Oluf Gjerset and J. O. Haugland, for respondents.
This is an action brought by Carl S. Starbeck, as citizen and taxpayer of the city of Montevideo, to enjoin defendants from leasing the auditorium in the municipal building owned by the defendant city, and to restrain the defendant Marsh from conducting moving picture shows therein.
The defendants are the city, its mayor, president of the city council and E. E. Marsh, lessee of the auditorium. The trial resulted in a decision in favor of defendants, and judgment was entered thereon, from which plaintiff appealed.
The record contains neither a settled case nor bill of exceptions. It consists of the complaint, answer, reply, findings of the court, judgment and notice of appeal. It is well settled in this state, that on an appeal from a judgment, where there is neither a bill of exceptions nor a settled case, the only matter that will be considered is whether the findings sustain the judgment. Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375, 92 N.W. 229.
The trial court found: That about 20 years ago, the village of Montevideo, now the defendant city, built, with funds provided for that purpose, a municipal building, containing office rooms for its administrative affairs, its fire department and fire apparatus, a library and an auditorium. The latter was designed and equipped for public gatherings, exhibitions, entertainments, theatrical attractions and the like, with a seating capacity of 800, and at a cost for the structure of about $17,000. It is not contended but that the village had a legal right to construct the building as it did.
The court further found, in effect: That in March, 1915, the city leased the auditorium to defendant Marsh for a moving picture show house; that the same was no longer needed for municipal purposes; that under the terms of the lease the use of said auditorium for the purposes for which it was primarily designed was not prohibited; that the building did not deteriorate by the leasing; that in entering into the lease the officers acted in good faith and to the best interests of the city and its taxpayers; that by so leasing the auditorium the city derives, in excess of what it had or would otherwise have received, an annual income of several hundred dollars which was paid into the treasury to the benefit of its general taxpayers.
The court also found...
To continue reading
Request your trial