Kaufer v. Ford

Decision Date18 January 1907
PartiesKAUFER v. FORD, County Auditor.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Red Lake County; William Watts, Judge.

Action by L. A. Kaufer against James E. Ford, as county auditor of Red Lake county. From an order dissolving a temporary injunction, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

A petition for the removal of the county seat of Red Lake county was dismissed by the board of county commissioners, when presented to it for action, without a consideration of its merits, on the ground that, because of certain defects in the proceedings leading up to its presentation, the board had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Immediately thereafter proceedings in mandamus were commenced against the board by a taxpayer and legal voter, on behalf of himself and all other legal voters of the county, to compel the members thereof to reconvene and hear and determine the petition upon its merits. Issue was joined, and all questions affecting the jurisdiction of the board to proceed in the matter were raised by the pleadings. Judgment was finally rendered therein to the effect that the board had full and complete jurisdiction to hear the petition upon its merits, and its members were commanded to convene on the 11th day of June, 1906, then and there to consider and determine whether it had the requisite number of signers to justify calling an election to vote upon the proposition, and, if so, to certify to the county auditor accordingly. Pursuant to the commands of the judgment, the board convened at the time stated, considered the petition upon its merits, found it in sufficient compliance with the statutes, and directed the auditor of the county to give notice of an election to vote upon the proposition, as required in such cases by the statutes. Thereafter this action was brought to restrain and enjoin the auditor from complying with the directions of the board, on the ground that the board had no jurisdiction to act in the matter, the grounds assigned being those which prompted the board originally to dismiss the petition, and, further, that the court below had no authority, by the judgment in the mandamus proceedings, to direct the commissioners to meet at a specified time, without further providing for the notice required to be given in such cases by section 396, p. 71, Rev. Laws 1905.

It is held that the judgment in the mandamus proceedings was final and conclusive upon all questions affecting the jurisdiction of the board to hear and determine the petition upon its merits, and those questions cannot be further litigated in this or any other action.

That proceeding was brought by a legal voter of the county, on behalf of himself and all other legal voters, and the judgment therein is conclusive as to all legal voters of the county upon all issues which were or might have been litigated therein; it not appearing that it was obtained by fraud or collusion.

The trial court exceeded its authority in commanding the board to convene on a date named, then and there to determine the merits of the petition, without further requiring notice to the voters of the county, as required by section 396, p. 71, Rev. Laws 1905, and to this extent the judgment is invalid on its face.

No valid certificate by the board of county commissioners to the effect that a proper petition has been filed can be issued by the board until after a hearing duly had, pursuant to the notice required by the statute referred to. T. J. Knox, F. A. Grady, and Chas. E. Boughton, for appellant.

A. A. Miller, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

The facts in this case are as follows: In January, 1905, certain persons, legal voters of Red Lake county, gave notice, under and pursuant to section 647, Gen. St. 1894, that on the 11th day of February of that year they, with other legal voters, would begin the circulation of a petition calling for an election to change the county seat from Red Lake Falls to Thief River Falls. Thereafter, and on the 11th day of April, 1905, a petition in proper form signed by a large number of citizens of the county, was presented to the county auditor, upon which that official was requested to call a special meeting of the board of county commissioners, in accordance with the requirements of the statutes, to consider and act upon the same. Acting under and pursuant to the duty imposed by law, the county auditor duly called a special meeting of the board to meet at the courthouse on the 5th day of June, 1905, to act upon the petition. Pursuant to this call, notice of which was given as required by statute, the board of county commissioners convened, and, after some consideration of the numerous questions raised before them respecting the validity of the prior proceedings, held that, by reason of the defects to which its attention was called, it had no jurisdiction to proceed in the premises, and the petition was ordered dismissed. The grounds of this decision were: (1) That the notice of intention to circulate the petition, the initiatory step in the proceedings, was not posted as required by law; (2) that there was no sufficient proof of the publication of the auditor's call for the meeting of the board to act on the petition, the particular defect being that the affidavit of the publisher of one of the newspapers in which the call was published was defective, in that the seal of the county auditor, before whom the affidavit was taken, was not attached to the jurat; (3) that there was no showing that the notice calling the meeting of the board was published in all newspapers published in the county; and (4) that the notice calling the meeting of the board was not posted in all the towns of the county, as required by the statutes, in that it was not shown to have been posted in the different wards of the village of Red Lake Falls, it being insisted by the opponents of the proceeding that the word ‘town,’ as used in the statutes requiring the notice of meeting to be posted, includes wards of villages-in fact, all election districts in the county. Subsequent to the dismissal of the petition by the board, proceedings in mandamus were brought by a legal voter of the county, on behalf of himself and all other legal voters, against the board of county commissioners, in which it was sought to compel the board to reconvene and hear and determine the petition upon its merits; it being insisted in support of that proceeding that the action of the board in dismissing the matter was not warranted by law, that it had full and complete jurisdiction to hear and determine the merits of the petition, and that the defects on which it relied in dismissing the same were without merit. The individual members of the board separately appeared in the mandamus proceeding; two of them putting...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT