Hennessy v. City of St. Paul
| Decision Date | 06 February 1889 |
| Citation | 37 F. 565 |
| Parties | HENNESSY v. CITY OF ST. PAUL. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Young & Lightner, for plaintiff.
W. P Murray, for defendant.
A suit was brought against the defendant for tearing down and removing plaintiff's frame building located on Robert street, in the city of St. Paul, in this district. The building was rented at the time a fire damaged it to the extent of from 30 to 50 per cent. of its value. It was vacant and untenanted on April 30, 1886, and was declared by the common council of the city imminently dangerous to life and property by reason of fire and its dilapidated condition, and a nuisance, and on July 1, 1886, was taken down. The act of the city is attempted to be justified under its charter and ordinances. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The charter of the city of St. Paul gives the common council power and authority to remove and abate any nuisance injurious to public health or safety, and to remove any building which, by reason of dilapidation * * * or other causes, may have or shall have become imminently dangerous to life and property. City Charter, p. 41, art. 32, Mun. Code St. Paul. On October 7, 1869, the following ordinance was passed (article 32, p. 41, Mun. Code St. Paul:)
'The common council shall have full power and authority to remove and abate any nuisance injurious to the public health or safety, and to remove, or require to be removed, any building which, by reason of dilapidation, defects in structure, or other causes, may have or shall become imminently dangers to life or property,' etc.
On April 30, 1886, a resolution of the common council was approved by the mayor, authorizing the destruction and removal of plaintiff's building. It was urged on the trial, and it is pressed with some degree of earnestness that under the charter and ordinance as above recited, the exclusive jurisdiction was conferred upon the common council to determine what constitutes a nuisance. I do not think so. The common council undoubtedly has the power to abate nuisances, and a dilapidated and vacant building, by reason of fire, and its temporary occupation by disorderly person and trespassers, and its use as a receptacle of filth, may become a common nuisance as recognized by law. But unless a nuisance, as defined by the common law or by statute, exists the act of the common council cannot make it one by a mere resolution. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. City of Lewiston
... ... Pragg, 31 Fla. 111, 34 Am. St. 17, 12 So ... 368, 19 L. R. A. 196; Pelkey v. National Surety Co., ... 143 Minn. 176, 173 N.W. 435; Hennessy v. City of St ... Paul, 37 F. 565; Lowe v. Conroy, 120 Wis. 151, ... 102 Am. St. 983, 97 N.W. 942, 66 L. R. A. 907; People v ... Board, 140 N.Y ... ...
-
Freeman v. City of Dallas
...that it is one, subject it to removal by any person supposed to be aggrieved, or even by the city itself."); Hennessy v. St. Paul, 37 F. 565, 566 (C.C. Minn. 1889)("[U]nless a nuisance, as defined by the common law or by statute, exists, the act of the common council cannot make it one by a......
-
Jamieson v. The Indiana Natural Gas And Oil Co.
... ... right of way through Indiana and through Illinois to the city ... of Chicago; that it should construct for the gas company, on ... the right of way secured, a ... following authorities, as bearing upon the questions involved ... in the case: Hennessy v. City of St. Paul, ... 37 F. 565; Cole v. Kegler, 64 Iowa 59, 19 ... N.W. 843; Harvey ... ...
-
Miles v. District of Columbia
...what in fact might be its real condition and character, at the disposal of the common council, without compensation. Hennessy v. St. Paul, 37 F. 565 (C.C. Minn.1889). In the instant case, the record indicates that in the Summer of 1963 the Board for the Condemnation of Insanitary Buildings ......