City of Minneapolis v. Olson
| Decision Date | 07 April 1899 |
| Citation | 76 Minn. 1,78 N.W. 877 |
| Parties | CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. OLSON et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; David F. Simpson, Judge.
Action by the city of Minneapolis against Alfred Olson and others. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendants appeal. Reversed.
The city of Minneapolis has no authority, under section 2026, Gen. St. 1894, to take from an applicant for a liquor license a bond running to the city as obligee, but the bond provided for in that section must run to the state. The city took such a bond, in the penal sum of $2,000, running to itself, conditioned as provided in said section, and conditioned further that the principal obligor therein ‘will comply with all the provisions of the city ordinance relating to the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquors.’ The license was issued. The licensee committed a breach of the ordinance, was convicted and fined therefor, and paid the fine. Thereupon this action was brought to recover the penalty of the bond. Held, the city had no authority, under its charter, to take such a penal bond, and the action cannot be maintained. Henry J. Gjertsen, Brooks & Hendrix, and Merrick & Merrick, for appellants.
Frank Healy and L. A. Dunn, for respondent.
The defendant Olson applied to the city council of Minneapolis for a license to sell intoxicating liquors at a designated place in that city. With his application, he presented a bond executed by himself as principal, and the other two defendants as sureties. The bond is in the penal sum of $2,000, runs to the city as obligee, and is conditioned as follows: ‘Whereas, Alfred Olson, principal in this bond, has duly applied to the city council of said city for license to sell intoxicating liquors in said city, and, if so licensed, he will not sell or otherwise dispose of any intoxicating liquors at any place other than the room named in such license, nor on the Sabbath, nor on any general or special election day, and that he will keep a quiet and orderly house, and not permit gambling, with cards, or with any other means or device, for money or its representative, or any other thing of value, in the house or place of business of said Alfred Olson, and will not sell, barter, give, or otherwise furnish or dispose of such liquors to any minor person, or to any pupil or student in any public school, academy, seminary, or other institution of learning, nor to any intemperate person nor habitual drunkard, and comply with all the provisions of the city ordinance relating to the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquors, then this obligation to be void, otherwise of force.’ This bond, with a proper affidavit and application, was filed with the city clerk; and the city council approved it, and ordered that a license issue on it to Olson for one year from July 1, 1897, on payment of $1,000 license fee, which he paid into the city treasury, and thereupon the license was issued. Thereafter he kept his saloon open on Sunday, November 7, 1897, contrary to the city ordinance, was arrested on a warrant, tried and convicted of that charge in the municipal court, and sentenced to pay a fine of $50, which he paid; and his license was also declared forfeited. This action is brought to recover $2,000, the penalty named in the bond. The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state a cause of action, and appeal from an order overruling the demurrer.
It will be observed that this action can be maintained only on the theory that this is a penal bond, and the action is for the recovery of the penalty. Appellants contend that the city had no authority to take any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moseng
...the rule to govern conduct and warns against transgression. See, 1 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure, §§ 18, 19. In City of Minneapolis v. Olson, 76 Minn. 1, 78 N.W. 877, and State v. Larson, 83 Minn. 124, 86 N.W. 3, 54 L.R.A. 487, this court has held that an authority to impose penalties......
- City of Minneapolis v. Olson
-
State v. Larson
...penalty here involved is fixed by statute, and the legislature has not delegated the power to impose it to any inferior tribunal, as in the Olson If the opinion of the court in this case is adhered to as the law of this state, the liquor dealer's bond, heretofore regarded as a forfeiture fi......
-
City of Roswell v. Jacoby
...815, to the same effect. Counsel for appellant cite two cases opposed to this view. State v. Estabrook, 29 Kan. 739; City of Minneapolis v. Olson, 76 Minn. 1, 78 N. W. 877. In City of Minneapolis v. Olson, supra, there was a state statute authorizing the requirements of a bond to the state.......