Markley v. City of St. Paul

Decision Date09 May 1919
Docket NumberNo. 21197.,21197.
Citation172 N.W. 215,142 Minn. 356
PartiesMARKLEY v. CITY OF ST. PAUL.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hugo O. Hanft, Judge.

Action by John J. Markley against the City of St. Paul. From a judgment for plaintiff on refusal of defendant to plead after overruling of general demurrer, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The Workmen's Compensation Act does not repeal by implication section 52 of the Charter of the City of St. Paul, providing compensation for a fireman injured in the course of his employment. O. H. O'Neill and James D. Swan, both of St. Paul, for appellant.

Tom J. McGrath, of St. Paul, for respondent.

QUINN, J.

Plaintiff, a fireman employed by the city of St. Paul, while so engaged, was, on Octover 4, 1917, injured and rendered incapable of performing his duties, and remained so incapacitated to the time of the bringing of this action. The city paid a sum equal to his monthly wage from the time of his injury to February, 1918, and refused to make further payments, claiming that the amount which he was entitled to receive should be determined under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1913, c. 84A). It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that he is entitled to full pay for the first six months of his incapacity, under the city charter, and accordingly he brought this action to recover the amount of his salary for February, 1918. Defendant interposed a general demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled. Defendant did not answer, and the plaintiff took judgment for the amount demanded. Defendant appealed from the judgment.

The city charter was adopted by the voters of St. Paul as a home rule charter in May, 1912, section 52 of which is as follows:

Sec. 52. All firemen or police officers injured in actual service and thereby rendered incapable of performing his duty, shall receive full pay during the period of incapacity not exceeding six months, and if incapacitated for a further period, one-half pay, not exceeding an additional period of six months. Such injured fireman or police officer shall be entitled to reinstatement at any time within eighteen months from the date of injury or incapacity, if physically capable of resuming his duties.’

The Workmen's Compensation Act was subsequently enacted and took effect October 1, 1913. The only question presented is whether this statute repealed section 52 of the charter. If the plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation for his injury under the charter, then the judgment is correct; otherwise not.

That a member of a fire department is an employé within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act was settled in State ex rel. City of Duluth v. Dist. Court, 134 Minn. 28, 158 N. W. 791, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 635. We are of the opinion that section 52 of the charter remains in force, notwithstanding the Compensation Act passed subsequently thereto.

Onr Constitution as amended in 1898 authorizes cities to frame their own charters which must be consistent with and subject to the laws of the state. Section 36, art. 4. The statute enacted to make the foregoing constitutional amendment operative and under which the charter in question was amended is section 1345, G. S. 1913, which provides in part as follows:

‘Subject to the limitations in this chapter provided, it [the charter] may provide for any scheme of municipal government not inconsistent with the Constitution, and may provide for the establishment and administration of all departments of a city government, and for the regulation of local...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • A. C. E. Equipment Co. v. Erickson
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1967
    ...in situations to which we have already called attention. Hjelm v. City of St. Cloud, 129 Minn. 240, 152 N.W. 408; Markley v. City of St. Paul, 142 Minn. 356, 172 N.W. 215; N.P. Ry. Co. v. City of Duluth, 153 Minn. 122, 189 N.W. This court then concluded that the charter prevailed; that the ......
  • Lilly v. City of Minneapolis
    • United States
    • Minnesota Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 1995
    ...motion pictures, city could nevertheless pass local legislation to prohibit such exhibition on Sundays); Markley v. City of St. Paul, 142 Minn. 356, 357-58, 172 N.W. 215, 215-16 (1919) (home rule charter city could offer more compensation than provided in Workmen's Compensation Act first en......
  • Vasseur v. City of Minneapolis, A16–1367.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • November 23, 2016
    ...being constitutionally subject to citizen amendment [by petition].” The court also relied on our decision in Markley v. City of St. Paul, 142 Minn. 356, 172 N.W. 215 (1919), to conclude that employment matters are a proper subject for municipal charter provisions.The City filed a notice of ......
  • State v. City of Crookston, 37089
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1958
    ...in situations to which we have already called attention. Hjelm v. City of St. Cloud, 129 Minn. 240, 152 N.W. 408; Markley v. City of St. Paul, 142 Minn. 356, 172 N.W. 215; Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. City of Duluth, 153 Minn. 122, 189 N.W. The general law states that 'the governing body' may c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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