Farmer v. City of St. Paul
| Decision Date | 19 June 1896 |
| Docket Number | 9914--(195) |
| Citation | 67 N.W. 990,65 Minn. 176 |
| Parties | JAMES FARMER v. CITY OF ST. PAUL and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Egan, J., denying a motion to set aside an order for judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant theretofore made, and denying a motion for a new trial. Reversed.
Order reversed, and a new trial granted.
Butts & Jaques, for appellant.
E. J Darragh and Robertson Howard, for respondent city and J. J McCardy, Comptroller of said city.
C. D. & T. D. O'Brien and Stevens, O'Brien, Cole & Albrecht for respondent House of the Good Shepherd.
This is an action by a taxpayer of the city of St. Paul to enjoin the city from paying the defendant the House of the Good Shepherd the sum of $ 71.50 for the board of female prisoners committed to such house by the municipal court of the city, pursuant to an ordinance of the city; also, to enjoin the city from allowing or paying any money from its treasury in the future for such purpose; and, further, to compel an accounting between the city and its codefendant for all money heretofore paid by the former to the latter for the board of female prisoners. The complaint prays for such other and further relief as may be just. When the case was called for trial in the district court, the defendants moved for judgment in their favor on the pleadings. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
If the allegations of the complaint, as modified by such of the allegations of the answer as the reply admits, would, if proven, entitle the plaintiff to any relief in the premises, it was error on the part of the trial court to grant the motion of the defendants, and direct a judgment in their favor, without a trial; otherwise, not. The material facts which are admitted by the pleadings are substantially these:
The defendant the House of the Good Shepherd is, and has been since January, 1869, a private charitable corporation, duly incorporated under the laws of this state, and is located in the city of St. Paul. Its members are required to be Sisters of the Society of the Good Shepherd, a religious sisterhood of the Roman Catholic faith. "Its general purpose and object is to reform fallen women, and to afford protection to other females whose circumstances in life might endanger their virtue; and its plan of operation to surround the above-mentioned classes of females with virtuous influences, and accustom them to habits of industry and self-respect." This corporation owns, occupies, and exclusively controls a building or home in the city of St. Paul, known as the "House of the Good Shepherd," and has so owned, occupied, and conducted the same since about the year 1869. It has been the custom for many years past for the municipal court of the city of St. Paul to commit female prisoners to the House of the Good Shepherd, from time to time, as they were convicted of misdemeanors subjecting them to imprisonment, under the charter and ordinances of the city. Such commitment was pursuant to an ordinance of the city declaring such house to be a workhouse for female prisoners. The city has paid to the House of the Good Shepherd during the past six years, for the board, lodging, and care of such female prisoners, in all $ 7,200. During the month of April, 1895, it so kept and cared for certain female prisoners of the city, for which it charged $ 3.25 per week for each prisoner, amounting to $ 71.50, which amount was allowed by the city, and it was about to pay the same, when this action was commenced. The city of St. Paul has a public workhouse, but it denies that it has facilities for properly caring for female prisoners therein.
There are many other allegations both in the complaint and answer, which are not admitted, but they are all immaterial save two. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a taxpayer of the city; also, in effect, that the city threatens to and intends to continue in the future to send its female prisoners to the House of the Good Shepherd, and contract with it for their detention, board, and care, and pay for the same from the public funds of the city. These allegations are put in issue by the answer of the city, but it contains no disclaimer of such intention; on the contrary, it maintains that the ordinance referred to is valid. The answer of the House of the Good Shepherd disclaims any purpose to ask or accept any compensation for the care of such prisoners in the future.
The first and important question presented by the admitted facts is whether the ordinance in question is valid. The city of St. Paul, as a municipal corporation, has only such powers and rights as have been expressly granted to it by the legislature, or which are incident thereto, and necessary to carry those powers into effect.
The authority of the city to enact the ordinance in question is subsection 36, § 3, subc. 4, c. 26, Sp. Laws 1868, [2] which reads thus:
"The common council of said city may provide by ordinance that any one convicted of an offense before the city justice, subjecting such offender to imprisonment under the charter and ordinances of said city, may be kept at hard labor in any workhouse established by said city for that purpose, or in case of a male offender may be kept at hard labor during his term of imprisonment in such workhouse or upon the public streets and improvements of said city, or both; and may also provide by ordinance that any one convicted of an offense before the city justice as aforesaid, and committed upon non-payment of a fine imposed, may be kept at hard labor in any workhouse of said city as aforesaid, or in case of a male offender, may be kept at hard labor either in such workhouse or upon the public streets and improvements, or both, until such persons shall work out the amount of such fine at such rate of compensation as said common council may prescribe, for a time not exceeding the term of such commitment, and the common council shall have full power to establish by ordinance all needful regulations for the security of such prisoners thus employed, and to prevent escape and insure proper discipline, and shall have power to establish a suitable workhouse in said city for the purpose aforesaid, and under such regulations as the said common council may provide."
This authorized the council of the city to provide by ordinance that any person convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment under the charter or ordinances of the city, or who was committed for the nonpayment of a fine imposed upon his conviction, might be kept at hard labor in any workhouse established by the city for that purpose. It gives the city full power to establish needful regulations for the security and discipline of such prisoners; also to use the county jail. There is no room for controversy as to the meaning of the term "workhouse" as used in this legislative grant of power to the city. The word, in this state, has a well-defined, popular, and legal signification. It is a place or prison where persons convicted of minor offenses and...
To continue reading
Request your trial