Hjelm v. City of St. Cloud
| Decision Date | 30 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 19,154 - (98) |
| Citation | 152 N.W. 408,129 Minn. 240 |
| Parties | SWAN F. HJELM v. CITY OF ST. CLOUD |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Benton county to cancel a deed and to adjudge that plaintiff was owner in fee of the property described and entitled to the possession thereof, and to compel defendant to account for the rents and profits. From an order, Nye, J., sustaining defendant's demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Charter of St. Cloud -- venue of actions.
Section 275 of the home rule charter of the city of St. Cloud providing that "all suits or proceedings by or against said city not brought before a city justice shall be brought in the district court of said Stearns county; and no other court whatever shall have original jurisdiction thereof," is held to refer to transitory actions and to actions and proceedings pertaining to or growing out of governmental affairs of the city, and does not apply to actions for the recovery of real estate which are governed by the general law found in section 7715, G.S. 1913.
Harry S. Locke, for appellant.
James E. Jenks, City Attorney, for respondent.
Plaintiff began this action in the district court of Benton county alleging in his complaint, in substance, that he was the son and sole heir of Swan Hjelm, who died intestate in 1913; that in September, 1912, Swan Hjelm was the owner of two lots in East St. Cloud, Benton county, Minnesota; that while such owner he became non compos and subject to insane delusions as to his property; that, while in this condition, to the knowledge of the officers and agents of the city of St. Cloud, they fraudulently induced him to deed said lots to the city without any adequate consideration; that said lots were procured by the city for investment and speculation; that after procuring the deed the city took possession, and does now entirely exclude plaintiff from possession and from participation in the rents and profits derived from the lots, the same being improved; and plaintiff demands judgment for cancelation of the deed, that he be decreed the owner and entitled to possession of the premises, and for such further relief as he may show himself entitled to. Defendant demurred on the ground that the district court of Benton county had not jurisdiction of defendant or of the subject of the action. Plaintiff appeals from the order sustaining the demurrer.
The defendant suggests as a preliminary question, that plaintiff's ownership is insufficiently alleged -- that the averment that he is the sole heir is a mere legal conclusion. As against the grounds specified for demurring we do not think the complaint fatally defective. It alleges plaintiff to be a son of Swan Hjelm, who died intestate, and that defendant entirely excludes plaintiff from the possession of the property wrongfully and fraudulently obtained from plaintiff's father, and from all rents and profits derived therefrom.
Should the demurrer have been sustained on the ground that the district court of Benton county could not obtain jurisdiction of the defendant? It is true that all transitory actions against municipalities are inherently local, so that as against an objection properly raised, such actions may not be tried in any other county than the one wherein is the governmental office of the sued municipality. State v. District Court of Waseca County, 120 Minn. 458, 139 N.W. 947, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 106. But it has not been held that if a transitory action is brought against a city in the district court of a county other than the one wherein the city is located there is want of jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. In the absence of specific statutory denial of jurisdiction to all district courts except the one wherein is the defendant municipality, we do not think a complaint demurrable because it therefrom appears that such defendant has not its governmental seat in the county where sued, unless this part of the section 275 of the home rule charter of this defendant so determines as to it: "All suits or proceedings by or against said city not brought before a city justice shall be brought in the district court of said Stearns county, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial