Davidson v. Patnaude
| Decision Date | 23 April 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,757.,21,757. |
| Citation | 145 Minn. 371 |
| Parties | JOHN H. DAVIDSON v. V. E. PATNAUDE AND OTHERS.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to restrain defendant boiler inspectors from sealing a boiler in a certain apartment house for nonpayment of inspection charges. Defendants' demurrer to the complaint was sustained, Jelley, J., and an application for a temporary injunction was denied. From the order sustaining the demurrer, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Charles V. White, for appellant.
Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General, and James E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
Appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint and refusing to grant an application for a temporary injunction.
Plaintiff owns an eight-family apartment house in the city of Minneapolis, heated by means of a low pressure steam boiler, which is under his personal management. The defendants are respectively, the chief, a deputy, and a district boiler inspector of this state. Without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, they caused his boiler to be inspected, demanded payment of the inspection fee fixed by the statute, and threatened to seal up the boiler and prevent him from using it, unless he pays the fee, to his irreparable injury. The complaint alleges that the right to inspect the boiler and collect the fee depends wholly on section 7, chapter 240, p. 239, Laws 1919, and that this section of the statute is unconstitutional.
At the argument the validity of the statute was questioned on three grounds: The first, that the title of the act does not express as one of its subjects the amendment purported to be made by section 7 to R. L. 1905, § 2186; the second, that there is no substantial basis for the classification of heating plants which is made by section 7; and the third, that, in attempting to require inspection of low pressure boilers used only in heating private residences, the legislature has gone beyond the limits of the police powers of the state.
Section 2186, R. L. 1905, is not referred to in the title to the act of 1919, which, so far as here material, reads as follows:
"An act to amend sections 2168, 2174, 2180, 2181 and 2184, Revised Laws of 1905, being part of chapter 31 thereof, which chapter relates to the inspection of steam vessels and boilers and the licensing of engineers; also amending said chapter 31 by adding thereto three (3) new sections."
Section 7 of the act reads as follows:
The complaint alleges that low pressure boilers used to generate steam to heat residences are in no way dangerous to life, limb or property, and cannot be made so even if unskilfully constructed, set up and operated, and that hence they cannot properly be made subject to inspection by the state.
We first take up plaintiff's third contention:
1. Whether low pressure boilers used only to generate steam for heating purposes can or cannot carry enough steam to become dangerous is a question of fact. As a general rule, the determination by the legislature of an open or debatable question of fact is not subject to review, if the question is one which it has power to determine. By the act in question the legislature has in effect determined that low pressure boilers used in heating plants may become dangerous, and, therefore, should be inspected at stated intervals and not used unless they pass inspection. Such a determination is one of fact and is as effectual as a final judgment of a competent tribunal of general jurisdiction in a like case. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Hartford, 170 Ind. 674, 82 N. E. 787, 85 N. E. 362, 20 L.R.A.(N.S.) 461; Stevenson v. Colgan, 91 Cal. 649, 27 Pac. 1089, 14 L.R.A. 459, 25 Am. St. 230; People v. Durston, 119 N. Y. 569, 24 N. E. 6, 7 L.R.A. 715, 16 Am. St. 859.
Another rule which is generally recognized is, that the rights and interests of the public are such that the parties to an action should not be permitted, by admissions in their pleadings, to obtain a determination of the constitutionality of a statute. To permit this to be done might lead to the abrogation of a statute by the agreement of the parties to an action, and, as it has been well said, a public law is not the property of any man and cannot be confessed away. Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 12 Sup. Ct. 400, 36 L. ed. 176; Nakwosas v. Western Paper Stock Co. 260 Ill. 172, 102 N. E. 1041, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 467; State v. Withrow, 154 Mo. 397; Dubuque & D. Ry. Co. v. Diehl, 64 Iowa, 635, 21 N. W. 117; Peckham v. People, 32 Colo. 140, 75 Pac. 422; State v. Manley, 34 S. D. 634, 150 N. W. 291.
The application of these rules leads us to decline to hold the statute unconstitutional solely on the strength of the rule of pleading that a demurrer admits the truth of the allegations of a complaint.
2. The original boiler inspection act was enacted in 1889 and appears in the statutes of 1894 as sections 480-494. It provided for the inspection of all boilers not subject to inspection under the laws of the United States, except railroad locomotives and boilers inspected by insurance companies. By chapter 91, p. 92, Laws 1899, the following proviso was added to section 1 of the original act: "Provided, however, the provisions of this act shall not apply to heating plants in private residences." By chapter 131, p. 186, Laws 1903, the statute was again amended, but the proviso added by the amendment of 1899 was retained.
On February 10, 1905, the case of State v. Justus, 94 Minn. 207, 102 N. W. 452, was decided, construing the statute as it then stood. It was held that, since a boiler used to heat a private residence was exempt from inspection, the person operating such a boiler was not required to take an examination or obtain a license as an engineer, as provided by the original act.
By the revision of 1905, which took effect March 1, 1906, the phraseology of section 1 of the original act was changed so as to read as follows:
"Such inspectors shall inspect all steam boilers in use in the state not subject to inspection under the laws of the United States and not hereinafter excepted, and examine and grant certificates of license to steam engineers intrusted with the management of steam boilers except those in heating plants in private residences." R. L. 1905, § 2168.
And section 14 was recast and made to read as follows:
"The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to railroad locomotives, to locomotive engineers employed by railroad companies, or to boilers insured by insurance companies and certified by their authorized inspectors to be safe." R. L. 1905, § 2186.
Section 1, chapter 240, p. 235, Laws 1919, is in substance the same as section 2168, R. L. 1905, while section 7 purports to amend section 2186. If we should hold that section 7 is vulnerable to attack on either or both of the grounds now under consideration, section 2186...
To continue reading
Request your trial