Beck v. Council of City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 11 October 1951
• Docket Number: No. 35629,35629
• Citation: 50 N.W.2d 81,235 Minn. 56
• Parties: BECK et al. v. COUNCIL of the CITY of ST. PAUL et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 81

50 N.W.2d 81

235 Minn. 56

BECK et al. v. COUNCIL of the CITY of ST. PAUL et al.

No. 35629.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 11, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1951.

Joseph J. Ermatinger, St. Paul, for relators

William M. Serbine, Corp. Counsel, Marshall F. Hurley, Asst. Corp. Counsel, St. Paul, for respondents.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Certiorari lies to review the quasijudicial acts and proceedings of a municipal body to determine--through an inspection of the record--if the body had jurisdiction, kept within it, and to examine the evidence, not for the purpose of weighing it, but to ascertain whether it furnished any legal and substantial basis for the action taken.

2. The phrase 'the majority of the owners of the property on the line of such * * * streets,' as used in § 129 of the St. Paul city charter, refers to a majority of the individual owners and not to a majority of the estates or tracts or to a major part of the property fronting on the line of the street.

MATSON, Justice.

In certiorari proceedings relators seek a review, upon jurisdictional grounds, of the action of the council of the city of St. Paul in adopting a resolution for the vacation of one of its streets.

We are concerned with the attempted vacation of that portion of South Oxford street which lies between Juliet avenue and Palace avenue in the city of St. Paul. Ever since its dedication, commencing with the platting of Ridgewood Park Addition in 1887, South Oxford street has remained in an ungraded and unimproved condition. Relators are owners in fee of two lots (lots 1 and 2, block 19, in Ridgewood Park Addition), which actually abut on that portion of South Oxford street with which we are concerned and which is hereinafter referred to as the street. The legal title to all other lots abutting on said street (lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 of block 19, and lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of block 18, all in said addition) is in the state of Minnesota for forfeited taxes, subject, however, to their purchase on a contract for deed by Dwight B. Jones and Phyllis Gene Jones as joint tenants. The two relators, as well as the contract purchasers, are all residents of St. Paul.

In January 1951, the contract purchasers, Dwight B. and Phyllis Gene Jones, filed a petition for the vacation of the street in question. Relators filed their written objections. After hearings upon said petition, the city council on June 12, 1951, over the objections of relators, adopted a resolution vacating and discontinuing the street as a public thoroughfare. Relators have brought the matter before this court for review by certiorari and thereby seek to have the resolution for the vacation of the street adjudged illegal and void on the ground that the council was without jurisdiction or authority to adopt the same, in that petitioners have not at any time constituted a majority of the owners of property on the line of said street as required by § 129 of the charter of the city of St. Paul, which provides:

'* * * No such vacation * * * shall be granted or ordered by the council except upon the petition of the Majority of the owners of the property on the line of such * * * streets, * * * resident within said city, * * *.

'* * * No vacation of any street, * * * shall * * * be allowed except upon such terms and conditions as to the compensation, if any, to be paid by the Persons seeking such vacation, * * * nor shall said council order any vacation without adequate compensation to said city.' (Italics supplied.)

1. Clearly, certiorari lies to review the quasi-judicial acts and proceedings of a municipal body to determine--through an inspection of the record--if the body had jurisdiction, kept within it, and to examine the evidence, not for the purpose of weighing it, but to ascertain whether it furnished any legal and substantial basis for the action taken. ¹ Here, we have a direct attack upon the jurisdiction or power of the city council. ² There is no dispute as to the facts. Aside from the interest of the state in the tax-forfeited land, we are concerned only with four persons who are owners of property on the line of such street. Two of these persons, as contract purchasers, have a property interest in ten abutting lots and as such have petitioned for a vacation of the street. Two other persons, the relators, who are owners of the two remaining lots, appear as objectors.

2. Obviously, petitioners and relators, in the sense of individual persons who own property upon the street line, are equally divided in number, and as Individuals the petitioners are not in the majority. The city council had no jurisdiction to act, unless § 129 of the charter is to be so construed that petitioners, Solely by reason of their property interest in the greater number of lots, constitute a majority of the property owners. Is the general phrase 'the majority of the owners of the property' to be construed as meaning either the owners of a majority of the lots or as the owners of the greater abutting land area? We think not. It is true that the word 'owner' is often used in an ambiguous sense, but that ambiguity usually stems from uncertainty as to the character, quality, or nature of the property interest essential to constitute one an owner. ³ Here, the issue is not what constitutes one an owner, but simply whether the numerical strength of those who are owners in fact is to be determined on a per capita basis or according to the amount or the number of...