Miller v. City of Minneapolis

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtCANTY
Citation77 N.W. 788,75 Minn. 131
Decision Date27 December 1898
PartiesMILLER v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS.

75 Minn. 131
77 N.W. 788

MILLER
v.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 27, 1898.


Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Edward M. Johnson, Judge.

Action by Janet R. Miller against the city of Minneapolis. Demurrer to complaint sustained, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.


Syllabus by the Court

Held, so far as the city of Minneapolis maintains its water plant for use by its fire department in extinguishing fires, it is performing a public or governmental function, and is not liable for the negligence of its officers and servants in permitting the pipes and hydrants to become clogged and choked with sand, bark, and other refuse.


[77 N.W. 788]

Welch, Hayne & Hubachek and P. M. Babcock, for appellant.

Frank Healy, for respondent.


CANTY, J.

The complaint alleges that, while plaintiff's goods were stored in a certain building in Minneapolis, the building took fire, and the fire department responded promptly, and connected their hose and fire engines to the street hydrants in the vicinity, and would have extinguished the fire before any damage occurred to plaintiff's goods, were it not that said hydrants, and the water pipes connecting with the same, were choked and clogged with mud, sand, stones, pieces of bark, and other ingredients, and by reason thereof no water did or could come through the hydrants for nearly an hour after said connection had been made by the fire department, and the mud, sand, bark, and other ingredients choked the engines, and by reason thereof the fire department were powerless and unable to get any supply of water to extinguish the fire, or prevent the spread of it, until plaintiff's goods were burned and destroyed. It is further alleged that the city erected and maintained the water plant, pipes, hydrants, and water service, and charged a compensation to private customers for the use of the same, but it is admitted that the city furnished the same for fire service without compensation, except such as is paid by general taxation. It is further alleged that the city was negligent in permitting the pipes and hydrants to be so choked and clogged, that plaintiff's goods were destroyed as aforesaid by reason of such negligence, and this action is brought to recover damages for the same. The city demurred, on the ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action, and, in our opinion, the demurrer was properly sustained. The city charter permits and authorizes, but does not compel, the city to maintain...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Lober v. Kansas City, No. 34710.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1936
    ...Jenny v. Brooklyn, 24 N.E. 274; Allied Realty Co. v. Philadelphia, 95 Pa. Super. Ct. 69; Goldman v. Boston, 174 N.W. 686; Miller v. City, 77 N.W. 788; Pointer v. Ry. Co., 269 Mo. 119; Judson v. Winsted, 80 Conn. 384, 68 Atl. 999; 45 C.J., p. 1207, sec. 775. (2) The court erred in giving pla......
  • City of Hattiesburg v. Geigor, 20362
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 18, 1918
    ...Tindley v. Salem, 137 Mass. 171; Minnesota--Grube v. St. Paul, 34 Minn. 402, 26 N.W. 228; See, also--Miller v. Minneapolis, 75 Minn. 133, 77 N.W. 788; Mississippi--Alexander v. Vicksburg, 68 Miss. 564; Missouri--Heller v. Sedalia, 53 Mo. 159; McKenna v. St. Louis, 60 Mo.App. 320; Nebraska--......
  • Richardson v. City of Hannibal, No. 30043.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1932
    ...188 N.W. 896, 193 Iowa, 1072; Adams v. Selectmen of the Town of Northbridge, 149 N.E. 152, 253 Mass. 408; Miller v. Minneapolis, 77 N.W. 788; Powell v. Village of Fenton, 214 N.W. 968; Gaetjens v. New York, 116 N.Y. Supp. 759; City of Patterson v. Era Railroad Co., 75 Atl. 922; Mabe v. Wins......
3 cases
  • Lober v. Kansas City, No. 34710.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1936
    ...Jenny v. Brooklyn, 24 N.E. 274; Allied Realty Co. v. Philadelphia, 95 Pa. Super. Ct. 69; Goldman v. Boston, 174 N.W. 686; Miller v. City, 77 N.W. 788; Pointer v. Ry. Co., 269 Mo. 119; Judson v. Winsted, 80 Conn. 384, 68 Atl. 999; 45 C.J., p. 1207, sec. 775. (2) The court erred in giving pla......
  • City of Hattiesburg v. Geigor, 20362
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 18, 1918
    ...Tindley v. Salem, 137 Mass. 171; Minnesota--Grube v. St. Paul, 34 Minn. 402, 26 N.W. 228; See, also--Miller v. Minneapolis, 75 Minn. 133, 77 N.W. 788; Mississippi--Alexander v. Vicksburg, 68 Miss. 564; Missouri--Heller v. Sedalia, 53 Mo. 159; McKenna v. St. Louis, 60 Mo.App. 320; Nebraska--......
  • Richardson v. City of Hannibal, No. 30043.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1932
    ...188 N.W. 896, 193 Iowa, 1072; Adams v. Selectmen of the Town of Northbridge, 149 N.E. 152, 253 Mass. 408; Miller v. Minneapolis, 77 N.W. 788; Powell v. Village of Fenton, 214 N.W. 968; Gaetjens v. New York, 116 N.Y. Supp. 759; City of Patterson v. Era Railroad Co., 75 Atl. 922; Mabe v. Wins......

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