Berman v. Minn. State Agric. Soc.

• Decision Date: 29 July 1904
• Citation: 93 Minn. 125,100 N.W. 732
• Parties: BERMAN v. MINNESOTA STATE AGRICULTURAL SOC.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

93 Minn. 125

100 N.W. 732

BERMAN

v.MINNESOTA STATE AGRICULTURAL SOC.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 29, 1904.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; A. M. Harrison, Judge.

Action by Samuel Berman against the Minnesota State Agricultural Society. There was verdict for defendant, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Under chapter 126, p. 170, Laws 1903, wherein the state was given the title and entire control of the property and funds of the previous State Agricultural Society, upon its acceptance (which must be presumed) its successor, the Minnesota State Agricultural Society, was clothed with public duties, became a department of the state, and immune from suits brought for the wrongful conduct of its servants.

2. In an action to recover for a wrongful arrest of a person visiting the fair grounds by the servants of the Minnesota State Agricultural Society, held, the association was not the subject of a claim for damages, but the relief for such a wrong can only be redressed by the Legislature.

3. The question of the legality of the transfer of the original State Agricultural Society and its acceptance by the state is not open to attack in a private action, but can only be inquired into by the original society or the state upon quo warranto.

4. The act of 1903, p. 170, c. 126, is not subject to the objection that it is special or class legislation. Hall & Kolliner and F. C. Heffron, for appellant.

W. J. Donahower, Atty. Gen., and Franklin W. Griggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

LOVELY, J.

In this action it is sought to recover damages from the Minnesota State Agricultural Society by plaintiff, who, while a visitor at its grounds during the last annual fair, claims to have been arrested and imprisoned upon an alleged unfounded criminal charge by one of the policemen appointed by and acting for the managers. The facts alleged in the complaint are such as would furnish legal grounds for a recovery against a private individual or corporation. Defendant appeared specially, and moved to set aside the service upon the affidavit of its secretary setting forth, in substance, that defendant corporation was the representative of the state of Minnesota, acting by virtue of authority conferred by chapter 126, p. 170, Laws 1903; that under such act it had charge of the fair grounds; that neither the society, affiant, nor any employé had done anything in the management of the grounds or in conducting the fair save and except in behalf of the state of Minnesota, who was owner of the grounds as well as all funds arising from the management and administration of the fair which was held by the officers of the society solely as the trustees of the state. In reply plaintiff filed an affidavit setting forth that the defendant was a private corporation, organized and existing under various acts of the Legislature of Minnesota, which were referred to therein; that such society ‘maintained and carried on a fair exhibition at the State Fair Grounds, consisting of horse racing, entertainments, displays of fireworks, aside from its exhibition of live stock, agricultural machinery, products of the farm, goods and merchandise of every character.’ The trial court, upon the view that the defendant was one of the agents of the state, and in executing governmental functions was immune from direct attacks of this character, set aside the service, from which order plaintiff appeals.

Since the adoption of the eleventh amendment to the Constitution it has been uniformly held that a suit by an individual cannot be maintained against a sovereign state without its consent. Briscoe v. Commonwealth of Ky., 11 Pet. 321, 9 L. Ed. 709, 928;Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. S. 531, 23 L. Ed. 623;Cunningham v. M. & B. R. R. Co., 109 U. S. 451, 3 Sup. Ct. 292, 609,27 L. Ed. 992;Reagan v. F. L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 390,14 Sup. Ct. 1047, 38 L. Ed. 1014. And the question presented on this review is whether the defendant society is relieved from liability to civil actions by reason of its relationship to the state as one of its agencies engaged in the performance of governmental functions in the same manner and to the same extent as the state for whom it claims to have been acting in the matters complained of. It must also be taken as settled that an executive officer of the state is not subject to the control or interference of the judiciary in the performance of duties belonging to him as such officer, and cannot be proceeded against in a civil suit without some legislative permission. Rice v. Austin, 19 Minn. 103 (Gil. 74), 18 Am. Rep. 330;State v. Dike, 20 Minn. 363 (Gil. 314); St. P. & Chicago Ry. Co. v. Brown, 24 Minn. 517;Western R. R. Co. v. De Graff, 27 Minn. 1, 6 N. W. 341;State v. Whitcomb, 28 Minn. 50, 8 N. W. 902. The state may and must commit the discharge of its sovereign political functions to agencies selected by it for that purpose. Such agencies, while engaged exclusively in the discharge of such public duties, do not act in any private capacity, but stand in the place of the state, and exercise its political authority. Therefore, when the state creates public corporations solely for governmental purposes, such corporations, while engaged in the discharge of the duties imposed upon them for the sole benefit of the public, are clothed with the immunities and privileges of the state; and no private action, in the absence of an express statute to that effect, can be maintained against them for negligence in the discharge of such duties. Lane v. State Agricultural Society, 62 Minn. 175, 64 N. W. 382,29 L. R. A. 708. The fair grounds where the...