Bell v. Jarvis
| Decision Date | 11 May 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,790 - (170) |
| Citation | 107 N.W. 547,98 Minn. 109 |
| Parties | H. H. BELL v. JAMES JARVIS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The city council of East Grand Forks, acting as a canvassing board, having decided and declared James Jarvis to be elected to the office of alderman of that city, H. H. Bell, a qualified elector, appealed to the district court for Polk county in behalf of August Borchers, the rival candidate. Issues were framed and the case was tried at the city of East Grand Forks (which is not the county seat), over the objections of the contestee, before Watts, J., who found in favor of contestant and awarded the election to Borchers. From a judgment entered pursuant to the findings, contestee appealed. Reversed and new trial granted.
District Court.
The district courts of this state have no authority or jurisdiction to convene for the trial of actions or proceedings involving issues of fact at any place in the county other than the county seat, except by the consent of the parties, or where expressly so authorized by statute.
Election Contest.
The trial of a contested election proceeding at the city of East Grand Forks, in Polk county, that city not being the county seat, against the objection and exception of one of the parties, held reversible error.
Waiver of Objection.
The objection to the trial at that place was not waived by subsequently taking part in the proceedings.
F. C Massee and G. A. E. Finlayson, for appellant.
H. A Bronson and D. T. Collins, for respondent.
Contest for the office of alderman of the First ward in the city of East Grand Forks, Polk county. Contestant had judgment awarding the office to August Borchers, from which contestee appealed to this court.
Several errors are assigned and discussed in the briefs, but in the view we take of the case it becomes necessary to cover by the opinion one question only, viz., whether the court below had authority and jurisdiction to hear and try the contest proceedings at the city of East Grand Forks; it being the contention of appellant that the proceedings could not be tried at any place in the county other than at Crookston, the county seat. As our conclusion upon this question results in a reversal of the case, we may say, in view of a new trial in the court below, that no other reversible errors are disclosed by the record.
Notice of the contest was filed with the clerk of the district court on November 20, 1905, and upon information thereof being given to the judge of that court he announced that he would hear the case at the city of East Grand Forks on December 28, following. No special term of court was called for the purpose, but at the time and place appointed the judge called the case for trial. Appellant appeared before the court specially and objected to the trial being had at that place, on the ground that the court could convene for the purpose of the trial of issues of fact only at the county seat. The objection was overruled, the case tried, and judgment ordered for respondent, awarding him the office in dispute.
We have no statute in this state expressly requiring district courts to sit for the trial of actions or the transaction of other judicial business at the county seat; but there can be no question that the court is not authorized to hear or determine issues of fact at any other place, except when authorized so to do by statute or consent of the parties. The county seat is the proper place for the transaction of all public business, including such judicial business as arises in the county, except the hearing by the presiding judge of issues of law, ex parte applications, or such matters as may properly be brought before the court in chambers or vacation. All the authorities to which our attention has been called hold that the court is without jurisdiction, at least in actions where issues of fact are involved, to proceed elsewhere, and that a trial conducted at some other place, against the objection of one of the parties, is void. They may be found collected in 21 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 605.
It has always been, not only the understanding, but the practice, in this state that the court must convene for the transaction of its business at the county seat, except in the instances where it is expressly authorized by statute, or by consent of the parties, to appoint some other place. Its records are all on file with the clerk, who is required by section 857, G.S. 1894, to keep his office at the county seat. A courthouse is provided by the taxpayers at the county seat for the use of the court and other officials; and the district courts of this state have uniformly, since its organization, convened at that place, except when otherwise authorized by statute, as, for example, where the courthouse is destroyed, or unsafe, or unfit for the holding of court or where no...
To continue reading
Request your trial