City of St. Paul v. Haugbro

• Decision Date: 22 July 1904
• Citation: 93 Minn. 59,100 N.W. 470
• Parties: CITY OF ST. PAUL v. HAUGBRO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

93 Minn. 59

100 N.W. 470

CITY OF ST. PAUL

v.HAUGBRO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 22, 1904.

Appeal from Municipal Court of St. Paul; John W. Finehout, Judge.

Knut Haugbro was convicted of violating an ordinance, and appeals. Affirmed.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-SMOKE ORDINANCE-VALIDITY-POLICE POWER.

1. Ordinance No. 1841 of the city of St. Paul, adopted November 1, 1895, and as amended by Ordinance No. 1986, adopted February 2, 1898, prohibiting the emission of dense smoke within the corporate limits of the city, considered, and held to be within the valid exercise of the police power of the municipality, and the conviction of defendant for violation thereof is sustained.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Ordinance No. 1841 of the city of St. Paul, adopted November 1, 1895, and as amended by Ordinance No. 1986, adopted February 2, 1898, prohibiting the emission of dense smoke within the corporate limits of the city, considered, and held to be within the valid exercise of the police power of the municipality, and the conviction of defendant for violation thereof is sustained. Durment & Moore and Horton & Denegre (Charles Beckhoefer, of counsel), for appellant.

J. C. Michael, City Atty., and Emil W. Helmes, Asst. City Atty., for respondent.

LOVELY, J.

Defendant was convicted in the municipal court of St. Paul of having violated the provisions of Ordinance No. 1841 of the General Ordinances of the city, approved October 7, 1895, as amended by Ordinance No. 1968, approved February 2, 1898, in allowing the emission of dense smoke from the building known as the ‘Angus Hotel,’ corner Western and Selby avenues, of that city; he being the fireman employed and having charge of the furnace therein. Judgment was entered upon the conviction. Defendant appeals therefrom.

The question involved on this appeal is the validity of the so-called smoke ordinance of the city of St. Paul, which had its origin in, and was authorized by, Laws 1887, p. 623, c. 48, § 3, subd. 1, which provides that the common council of the city, among other things, may control and regulate the construction of buildings, and chimneys therein, and prohibit the emission of ‘dense smoke.’ Section 36 art. 4, of the state Constitution, was amended, allowing cities to frame their own charters, in 1898. Under this amendment the Legislature (chapter 351, p. 462, Laws 1899) provided that all ordinances, resolutions, and regulations in force at the time of any new charter adopted by virtue of such amendment, not inconsistent with the provisions thereof or of that act, should remain and be in force until altered, modified, or repealed by the lawmaking authorities of the city taking the benefit of its provisions, and we are clear that it cannot be open to doubt that the ordinance in question, so far as relative to the conditions presented on this appeal, was in force at the time of the defendant's conviction. In the case of St. Paul v. Gilfillan, 36 Minn. 298, 31 N. W. 49, it was held that at that time the city had not the power to pass such an ordinance, and, upon the absence of that authority, prosecution was defeated. In St. Paul v. Johnson, 69 Minn. 184, 72 N. W. 64, the prosecution failed upon the ground that the ordinance then in force did not make servant of the owner liable. But the objections which defeated the prosecutions in these cases do not apply here. The ordinance was in terms general, and applicable to all persons violating the same; nor can it be questioned that the Legislature could confer upon a municipality the right ot prohibit whatever is injurious or detrimental to public health or comfort, and that...