Fanning v. University of Minnesota
| Decision Date | 17 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | 28,247 |
| Citation | 236 N.W. 217,183 Minn. 222 |
| Parties | EDWARD FANNING AND OTHERS v. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Taxpayers' suit in the district court for Ramsey county to enjoin the erection of a dormitory on the campus of the University of Minnesota. There were findings and judgment for defendants, Orr, J. and plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.
University regents not subject to control by taxpayer's suit.
1. The constitution vests the government of the University of Minnesota in the board of regents, following State ex rel. University of Minnesota v. Chase, 175 Minn. 259 220 N.W. 951; and in the exercise of its granted power of government, so long as it keeps within the limits of its grant, it is not subject to legislative or executive interference or judicial control at the suit of a taxpayer.
Board may build dormitory on campus without legislative authority.
2. In the exercise of its power of government the board may construct a dormitory upon the university campus without legislative authority.
Rentals from campus property may be used for such purpose.
3. The proceeds of rentals from buildings on the campus, not used for university purposes, assigned in a proviso of an appropriation bill to the maintenance and improvement of the campus, may be used in the construction of a dormitory.
They belong to university without legislative appropriation.
4. Such rentals belong to the university without an appropriation by the legislature and are subject to use in the construction of a dormitory or may be used for other purposes as determined by the board.
Incidental earnings of university press also usable.
5. In the construction of a dormitory the board may use earnings from its university press for work done outside of that done for the university, the earnings being incidental to its use for university purposes.
No state debt created by pledge of dormitory earnings.
6. The board may appropriate the net earnings of the dormitory and pledge rentals and earnings of the character noted to the payment of money advanced for dormitory construction and undertake that they shall be so applied. It may evidence its pledge and undertaking by writings called bonds, which exempt the state and the university and the regents and officers from personal liability, as well as all the property of the state, the university, and the board, including the dormitory itself, from any charge. Thereby a debt of the state or a pledge of its credit is not contracted within art. 9, §§ 5-9, of the constitution.
Harris Richardson, for appellants.
Henry N. Benson, Attorney General, Charles E. Phillips and John F. Bonner, Assistant Attorneys General, and Everett Fraser, for respondents.
Taxpayers' suit to enjoin the defendants from erecting a dormitory on the campus of the University of Minnesota. There were findings and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal from the judgment.
1. The status of the board of regents and of the university and their relation to the state were considered in State ex rel. University of Minnesota v. Chase, 175 Minn. 259, 220 N.W. 951, 954. The question arose upon a controversy between the board and the commission of administration and finance created by L. 1925, p. 756, c. 426, 1 Mason, 1927, c. 3A, a body appointed by the governor and subject to executive control, over the power of the board to establish a plan of group insurance for members of the faculty and employes and incur expense in doing so; and the result was a holding that the board charged with the government of the university had power to establish such plan and in respect of it was immune from legislative interference or executive control.
By L. 1851, p. 9, c. 3, entitled "An act to incorporate the University of Minnesota, at the Falls of St. Anthony," there was "established in this territory an institution, under the name and style of the University of Minnesota." The government was vested in the regents. They were made a body corporate. It was made their duty to enact laws for the government of the university. They were directed to procure a suitable site for buildings and proceed to erect them as soon as funds were provided. The last section of the act, § 20, provided: "The legislative assembly may at any time, alter, amend, modify or repeal this act." It was in form repealed by L. 1860, p. 264, c. 80, § 17.
In State ex rel. University of Minnesota v. Chase, 175 Minn. 259, 220 N.W. 951, it was held that the board and the university had the powers granted by the territorial assembly, L. 1851, p. 9, c. 3, which were perpetuated in the university by art. 8, § 4, of the constitution adopted in 1858 in language as follows:
It was suggested at argument that the provision for repeal, § 20, quoted above, was not considered in the Chase case. An examination of the record shows that the provision for repeal was noted in the brief of the university. The opinion expressly mentions it and says :
"So the university, in respect to its corporate status and government, was put beyond the powers of the legislature by paramount law, the right to amend or repeal which exists only in the people themselves."
In State ex rel. Smith v. Van Reed, 125 Minn. 194, 145 N.W. 967, 968, involving the exercise of the power of eminent domain in taking private property for a right of way to connect by street railway the university campus and the university farm, reference was had to § 20; and Judge Taylor, referring to the territorial statute of 1851 and to the constitution of 1858, said that
Of the effect of the adoption of the constitution there is no doubt. The people by their constitution chose to perpetuate the government of the university which had been created by their territorial legislature in a board of regents, and the powers they gave are not subject to legislative or executive control; nor can the courts at the suit of a taxpayer interfere with the board while governing the university in the exercise of its granted powers. This does not mean that the people created a corporation or institution which is above the law. The board must keep within the limits of its grant. It is charged with the duty of maintaining a university for the purpose of higher education. This does not mean that the university must have the limitations of colleges of 1851 or 1858. The statute and constitution intended a university which would grow and develop and undertake activities in the way of research and in other respects not then visualized in the dreams of its founders. There are many things which the board may not do. It does not claim otherwise. In a real sense the property of the university is the property of the state, which through its taxpayers is its chief supporter. The board cannot divert it to other than university purposes. It must govern a university which the territorial statute and the constitution established and perpetuated. The people gave it in charge of the board and may take it away as they gave it; for, after all, when the theorizing as to the relationship of the board and the university and the state is at an end, the university is the people's university. It does not rule; it serves.
2. The power to construct buildings is given by the territorial act. The power to govern a university implies the power to construct buildings. It is not urged that dormitories do not serve a public use. They...
To continue reading
Request your trial