Driscoll v. Board of Com'Rs of Ramsey County

• Decision Date: 23 January 1925
• Docket Number: No. 24461.,24461.
• Citation: 201 N.W. 945,161 Minn. 494
• Parties: DRISCOLL et al. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF RAMSEY COUNTY et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

201 N.W. 945

161 Minn. 494

DRISCOLL et al. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF RAMSEY COUNTY et al.

No. 24461.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 23, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Charles Bechhoefer, Judge.

Suit by Walter J. Driscoll and another against the Board of County Commissioners of Ramsey County and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal from an order denying motion for new trial. Reversed.

J. P. Kyle, of St. Paul, for appellants.

Harry H. Peterson and R. A. McDonald, both of St. Paul, for respondents.

WILSON, C. J.

This is an appeal from an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Plaintiffs are taxpayers and brought this action to restrain the defendants, constituting the board of county commissioners of Ramsey county, from acquiring land for the purpose of establishing a bathing beach pursuant to the authority of chapter 258, Laws 1923. The title of this act reads:

"An act authorizing the county board of any county, now or hereafter having property of an assessed valuation of not less than $125,000,000, and not more than $250,000,000, to acquire, improve, and equip one, or more tracts of land within such county but outside the limits of any city or village located within said county, for use as a park, bathing beach * * * or recreational ground and to pay for same out of any moneys in the county treasury not otherwise appropriated or by issuing, not to exceed $50,000 bonds of any such county."

Plaintiffs contend that this law is unconstitutional, in contravention of article 4, §§ 33 and 34, of the state Constitution.

Ramsey county is the only county that has an assessed valuation within the prescribed limits, and therefore the only county to which the law is or can be applicable. The assessed valuation of Ramsey county for the year 1922 was $154,482,193.00. Two other counties in the state, namely, Hennepin county and St. Louis county, have assessed valuations in excess of $250,000,000, Hennepin county in the year 1922 had an assessed valuation of $296,672,941. St. Louis county for the same year had an assessed valuation of $363,279,422. All other counties in the state have assessed valuations of less than $30,000,000. The average assessed valuation of such other counties being approximately $15,000,000. The assessed valuation of Ramsey, Hennepin, and St. Louis counties for the year 1923 were as follows, respectively: $160,152,262; $306,032,606; $368,732,310.

The fact that at present Ramsey county is the only county that may operate under this law is not fatal. State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 58 N. W. 150; Wall v. St. Louis County, 105 Minn. 403, 117 N. W. 611; State v. Cloudy & Travers (Minn.) 198 N. W. 457; State v. Delaware Iron Co. (Minn.) 200 N. W. 475. It brings within its scope all counties similarly situated and treats all counties, which come within the class, alike. In this respect it meets the requirements of the Constitution. Lodoen v. City of Warren, 146 Minn. 181, 178 N. W. 741; Stevens v. Village of Nashwauk (Minn.) 200 N. W. 927; Johnson v. St. Paul & Duluth Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 222, 45 N. W. 156, 8 L. R. A. 419; State v. Pocock (Minn. filed Jan. 2, 1925) 201 N. W. 610. It also properly permits other counties to come within the classification when they have the proper assessed valuation. Roe v. City of Duluth, 153 Minn. 68, 189 N. W. 429. It embraces the necessary present and prospective operation. The criticial questions in this case are as to whether the classification is germane to the subject of the law, and is there a relation between the assessed valuation and the public necessity or propriety of recreation grounds?

The Legislature is the lawmaking power of the state. If the necessity for this law calls for the exercise of discretion in the classification of particular subdivisions of the state for the purpose of legislation, we cannot review such discretion and substitute the views of the court as to the propriety of the classification. "It is only when the classification is so manifestly arbitrary as to evince a legislative purpose of evading the provisions of the Constitution that the courts may and must declare the classification unconstitutional." State v. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437, 89 N. W. 175, 57 L. R. A. 297, 89 Am. St. Rep. 571; State v. Brown, 97 Minn. 402, 407, 106 N. W. 477, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 327. A valid classification should be based upon some natural reason. The counties put in the particular class should require different legislation than those counties omitted therefrom. This court in State v. Brown, 97 Minn. 402, 106 N. W. 477, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 327, said:

"The general principles which underlie and control the theory of permissible classification are now well settled in this state. The basis of classification must not be arbitrary or illusory. Having reference to the particular legislation, there must be some substantial distinction which suggests a reasonable necessity or propriety for different laws for the objects or places embraced within or excluded from the class. There must be something suggested by a difference in the situation and circumstances of the subjects placed in different classes, which discloses the necessity or propriety for different legislation in respect thereto. The classification must be founded upon legitimate differences in situation, population, or inherent condition. The places or things included must have some characteristics or peculiarities distinguishing them from those which are excluded. The basis must be sufficiently broad to include all subjects whose conditions and wants render such legislation equally appropriate. Unless the statute is curative or remedial, and therefore temporary, the classification must not be based upon existing conditions only, but provision must be made for future acquisitions to the class as other subjects acquire the characteristics which form the basis of the classification."

A law is uniform in its operation if it operates equally upon all the subjects within the class of subjects to which it is applicable but the Legislature cannot adopt an arbitrary classification even though the law may operate equally upon each subject of each of the classes adopted.

Chapter 130, Laws 1907, provides:

"An act entitled `An act providing for the issuance of interest-bearing certificates of indebtedness to aid in the erection, construction and furnishing of a courthouse, county jail and other county buildings, or either or any of them, in counties in this state having property of an assessed valuation of not less than $100,000,000, and having a bonded indebtedness of not more than $700,000.'"

The constitutionality of this law came before the court in Wall v. County of St. Louis, 105 Minn. 403, 117 N. W. 611. The classification was based upon the financial condition of the county, as determined by the relation between its indebtedness and the assessed valuation of its property. It was held that there was a reason justifying the Legislature in forming a class out of counties situated as St. Louis county was then, and the court concluded that the financial condition of a county, its resources and liabilities, had such a reasonable and natural connection with the question of the propriety of intrusting the matter of increasing its bonded indebtedness to its officials as to justify the Legislature in making it the basis of classification. State v. Cloudy & Travers (Minn.) 198 N. W. 457, sustained a classification which was based on area and assessed valuation. State v. Delaware Iron Co. (Minn.) 200 N. W. 475, sustained a classification containing three elements; a majority of its rural schools and at least one-third of its total school enrollment must be within one or more school districts containing not less than ten townships, each, and the per capita assessed valuation of such district or districts must be less than one-half of the per capita assessed valuation of the entire county.

A law need not operate alike upon all the inhabitants of the state or upon all of its subdivisions in order to be a general law. The people never intended in adopting the provisions of the Constitution to make necessary legislation impossible, nor, in fact, impracticable. The practical limitation is that the classification shall be based upon some natural reason founded in necessity or arising out of differences in the situation and circumstance of the subjects classified making it advisable for different legislation with respect to them. The classification cannot be merely arbitrary. Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264, 33 N. W. 800; State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322, 34 N. W. 164; State v. Sheriff of Ramsey County, 48 Minn. 236, 51 N. W. 112, 31 Am. St. Rep. 650; Duluth Banking Co. v. Koon, 81 Minn. 486, 84 N. W. 335; State v. Pocock, supra.

The statute under consideration bases the classification on the assessed valuation only. Our attention has not been called to any decision of this or any other court holding that assessed valuation alone is a proper classification for any legislation. If it may be assumed that the assessed valuation was used as a criterion of the ability of the county to sustain the burden, the answer is that, since it is silent upon the amount of the county's bonded indebtedness, the assessed valuation alone is not the determining factor from which such a conclusion may be drawn. Then if such ability comes from the assessed valuation alone, those counties which are excluded, because of having a higher assessed valuation, have the ability to sustain the burden, and, upon such a classification, they are included in the same class though by the language of the statute they are excluded from its operation. If such is the theory, and it is, then the two counties whose assessed valuation exceeds $250,000,000 are better qualified to carry the burden, and they belong to the same class in reality, but are omitted from the application of the law, and because the law does not...