City of Jordan v. Leonard
| Decision Date | 11 October 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,739 - (74) [2] |
| Citation | 137 N.W. 740,119 Minn. 162 |
| Parties | CITY OF JORDAN v. MARY LEONARD |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Scott county to compel the removal of a fence from a certain street and enjoin defendant and persons claiming under her from doing any act to interfere with the rights of the public therein. From an order Morrison, J., overruling defendant's demurrer to the complaint, she appealed. Affirmed.
Injunction -- complaint sufficient.
A municipality, whose public streets and grounds have been placed under the control of its common council, or other officers, may maintain an action to abate a nuisance therein and to enjoin its maintenance. The complaint herein alleges facts constituting such a cause of action.
F. J Leonard, for appellant.
George F. Sullivan, for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the district court of the county of Scott overruling the defendant's demurrer to the complaint. The complaint alleges, in effect, the ultimate facts following:
The plaintiff has been for more than twenty years last past, and now is, a municipal corporation, duly organized, incorporated, existing, and being in the county of Scott and state of Minnesota, under and by virtue of Sp. Laws 1891, p. 120, c. 4. There is now in such municipality, and has been during all the times herein stated, and for more than twenty years last past, a public street and highway, known as Fourth street, which is wholly within the corporate limits of the plaintiff. Such street has been dedicated to the public as a public street and highway, and accepted by the public for that purpose. The defendant, without any right whatever, on May 5, 1911, built a fence in such street and thereby inclosed a portion thereof, and threatens to place other permanent structures therein, and to maintain such nuisance, whereby the street will be reduced in width sixteen feet, rendering it less convenient for public use and placing it in a dangerous condition, thereby causing a multiplicity of suits and working irreparable injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Wherefore the plaintiff demands judgment abating the nuisance, and enjoining the defendant from maintaining such fence and structures in the street, and for general relief.
The defendant's first contention is that the city council, and not the city in its corporate name, should have instituted the action.
A municipality, whose public streets and grounds have been placed under the control of its common council, or other officers, may maintain an action to abate a nuisance therein and to enjoin its maintenance. Village of Pine City v. Munch, 42 Minn. 342, 44 N.W. 197, 6 L.R.A. 763; Township of Hutchinson v. Filk, 44 Minn 536, 47 N.W. 255; Village of Buffalo v. Harling, 50 Minn. 551, 52 N.W. 931; City of Red...
To continue reading
Request your trial