Megnella v. Meining (In re Megnella)

• Decision Date: 19 May 1916
• Docket Number: No. 19686[86].,19686[86].
• Citation: 133 Minn. 98,157 N.W. 991
• Parties: In re MEGNELLA. MEGNELLA v. MEINING.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

133 Minn. 98

157 N.W. 991

In re MEGNELLA.MEGNELLA

v.MEINING.

No. 19686[86].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 19, 1916.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Bert Fesler, Judge.

In the matter of the imprisonment of Michael Megnella. Proceedings between Michael Megnella and John R. Meining. From an order remanding Michael Megnella to the custody of the sheriff after hearing under a writ of habeas corpus, he appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

When, under the charter of the city of Duluth, a sufficient referendum petition, protesting against an ordinance, is presented to the city council, and the ordinance is repealed, the council cannot pass the same ordinance again, or one like it in all essential features, but it may pass an ordinance on the same subject-matter, providing it acts in good faith and not for the purpose of evading the referendum provisions of the charter, and providing the new ordinance differs from the old in essential features.

The second ordinance in this case differs in essential and important particulars from the one protested against by the referendum petition; there is no evidence that the council in passing it acted in bad faith or with intent to evade the charter provisions, and the ordinance was valid. A. E. McManus, of Duluth, for appellant.

Henry F. Greene, John E. Samuelson, Leonard McHugh, and Warren E. Greene, all of Duluth, for respondent.

BUNN, J.

Michael Megnella appeals to this court from an order of the district court of St. Louis county remanding him to the custody of the sheriff after a hearing under a writ of habeas corpus. Megnella was imprisoned under a warrant of the municipal court of Duluth on a charge of operating an automobile as a common carrier for hire without first obtaining a permit, in violation of an ordinance of the city passed September 13, 1915. The question is as to the validity of this ordinance. The essential facts are as follows:

On May 17, 1915, the council passed an ordinance attempting to regulate the business of carrying passengers for hire by auto cars. It was approved by the mayor May 19th, published May 20th, and by the terms of the Duluth charter would go into effect and be in force 30 days after its publication, unless in the meantime a sufficient referendum petition was presented to the council. June 18th, a referendum petition was presented, but was insufficient because not signed by the required number of voters. July 8th, more than 30 days after the publication of the ordinance, the names of sufficient voters were added to the petition to make the total number of signers sufficient. The charter provides that if during the 30 days after an ordinance is published a petition signed by at least 10 per cent. of the qualified electors of the city, protesting against the passage of the ordinance, is presented to the council, it shall be suspended from going into operation; if not repealed by the council it...