Hamilton v. Village of Detroit
| Decision Date | 03 May 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,540 - (33) |
| Citation | 85 N.W. 933,83 Minn. 119 |
| Parties | GEORGE D. HAMILTON and Others v. VILLAGE OF DETROIT and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Becker county to enjoin defendant village of Detroit, from issuing certain bonds for the purchase of an electric light plant. From an order, Searle J., dissolving a temporary injunction granted ex parte by the court commissioner, plaintiffs appealed. Affirmed.
Village Election -- Resolution -- Defective Publication.
The village council of the village of Detroit, upon petition duly presented under Laws 1893, c. 200, duly called a special election, pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 1894, §§ 1216, 1217, for the purpose of voting upon the proposition contained in the petition, -- a proposal for the construction and equipment by the village of an electric light plant. The resolution calling the election provided that ten days' notice of the same should be given by posting notices in three of the most public places of the village, and also by publishing the resolution. The notices were duly posted as required, but the resolution was not published ten days before the election. Held, that the failure to publish the resolution ten days before the date set for the election was not fatal to the validity thereof, inasmuch as the statutes were fully complied with by the proper posting of the notices.
Statutory Requirements -- Council Cannot Change.
The statutes referred to do not require both a posting and publishing of the notice of election. The village council could not, by resolution or otherwise, add to or take from the statutory requirements, and a notice of election given either by publishing or posting was a sufficient compliance with the law, even though the council ordered the same to be both posted and published, and there was a failure to publish.
Assignments of Error.
Other assignments of error considered, and held to present no reversible error.
Jeff J. Irish, C. M. Johnston and Harris Richardson, for appellants.
M. L. Countruman, for respondents.
This action was brought to enjoin the municipal authorities of the village of Detroit from issuing certain bonds of the village. At the time of the commencement of the action plaintiffs obtained from the court commissioner, ex parte, a temporary injunction, which was dissolved by the district court on motion of defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.
The bonds threatened to be issued and negotiated by defendants were authorized by the voters of the village at a special election held on June 23, 1900, for the purpose of establishing and equipping an electric light plant. This action is founded on certain irregularities and defects in the conduct of the election, because of which irregularities and defects it is claimed that the election was a nullity. The complaint sets out the facts very fully, the allegations of which are in the main admitted. But one material question of fact is put in issue by the answer. Plaintiffs allege that the petition for the election, which by the statute authorizing it is required to be signed by twenty-five voters and freeholders (Laws 1893, c. 200), was not signed by the requisite number, and that some of the persons who signed the same were not freeholders or voters of the village. The answer puts this allegation in issue, and, as we view the matter, it presents the only material issue of fact in the case. There is, however, another issue of fact on the face of the pleadings, in reference to whether the issuance of the bonds would increase the rate of taxation above the maximum allowed by G.S. 1894, § 1639. But as the bonds here in question are expressly authorized by the act of 1893, supra, the general statute can have no application, and the issue is not a material one. It is not claimed that the rate of taxation would be increased above the ten per cent. limit fixed by the act of 1893. All other issues present questions of law only. The facts are not in dispute.
The proceedings looking to the issuance of the bonds were conducted under the provisions of Laws 1893, c. 200. This act provides that every village in this state may issue its bonds for the purpose of raising money for any lawful public improvement, by conforming to the provisions of the act. It then proceeds, and particularly specifies the proceedings to be had for such purpose, the submission of the question to the voters, and the manner of conducting the election. The first essential step required by the law where the village council does not act of its own motion, is the presentation of a petition, signed by twenty-five voters and freeholders residing within the village, requesting the council to make the designated improvement therein. When such petition is so presented, the council is required to cause the proposition embodied therein to be submitted to the electors of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial