Macy v. City of Duluth

• Decision Date: 08 June 1897
• Parties: MACY v CITY OF DULUTH.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

68 Minn. 452

71 N.W. 687

MACYvCITY OF DULUTH.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 8, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Section 13, subc. 3, c. 2, Sp. Laws 1887 (the charter of Duluth), provides that “no alderman or other officer or employé shall be a party to, or interested in, any job or contract with the city,” that any such contract shall be null and void, and any money paid thereon may be recovered back. Held, under this section, a city employé, a poundmaster, cannot recover from the city on an implied contract for use and occupation of premises furnished by him to the city for use as a public pound.

Appeal from municipal court of Duluth; W. D. Edson, Judge.

Action by Theodore Macy against the city of Duluth. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

J. D. Holmes, J. B. Richards, and John Rustgard, for appellant.

Edson & Hanks, for respondent.

CANTY, J.

During all the time between May 15, 1888, and May 15, 1896, plaintiff was one of the poundmasters of the city of Duluth. He leased from the owner two small strips or pieces of land on opposite sides of a public alley, at a monthly rental of $5, and he and some of the other city employés inclosed these two strips, together with the alley between them, and built thereon sheds and a building for storing feed. The city furnished the lumber for making the improvements on the inclosure, and the same, with the buildings thereon, was used for a public pound, and for storing wagons, sleighs, and other property for private parties. During all of said time plaintiff kept this pound, turned over to the city treasurer the moneys received for impounding animals therein, and received from the city a salary of $60 per month. No express agreement was made between him and the city to pay him compensation for the use of this pound, and he presented no bill for any such compensation until after he ceased to be poundmaster. Then he brought this action to recover the reasonable value of the use and occupation, on an implied agreement to pay for the same. The court below awarded him $5 per month for the whole time, although it found as follows: “That the use of said premises, including said alley, as so occupied, was of the value of five dollars per month, and the use of the said alley was of the value of two dollars per month.” Defendant appeals from the judgment.

We are of the opinion that the action cannot be maintained. Section 13, subc. 3, c. 2, Sp. Laws 1887 (the charter of Duluth), provides:...