Murray v. Bd. of Com'rs of Ramsey Cnty.

• Decision Date: 14 November 1900
• Citation: 81 Minn. 359,84 N.W. 103
• Parties: MURRAY v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF RAMSEY COUNTY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

81 Minn. 359

84 N.W. 103

MURRAY

v.BOARD OF COM'RS OF RAMSEY COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 14, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; Brill, Judge.

Action by Edwin Murray, doing business under the name of Murray Institute, against the board of county commissioners of Ramsey county. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

Chapter 260, Laws 1897, entitled ‘An act to provide for the treatment of inebriates by counties and prescribing rules governing the same,’ is unconstitutional, in that it is special legislation as to the affairs of counties, and is not uniform in its operation throughout the state. F. W. Zollman, for appellant.

Matthew Gallagher, for respondent.

START, C. J.

The question presented by the record in this case for our decision relates to the constitutionality of Laws 1897, c. 260, entitled ‘An act to provide for the treatment of inebriates by counties and prescribing rules governing the same.’ The defendant urges several objections to the validity of this act, but we find it necessary to consider only one of them, which is to the effect that the act violates sections 33 and 34 of article 4 of the state constitution, in that it is special legislation as to the affairs of counties, and is not uniform in its operation throughout the state. The act provides for the commitment to, and treatment in, a private institution for the cure of inebriates, at the expense of the county of their residence, of a limited number of indigent, habitual drunkards, on their petition, or that of some friend or kin, to the probate court. Whether an indigent inebriate shall be so treated is made by the act to depend upon his voluntary election. If he elects to avail himself of the proffered bounty, and makes or consent to the making of the proper petition, the probate court may act, otherwise not; and the county must pay for his treatment if he establishes the allegations of his petition, but no more than one inebriate a year for each 10,000 population of each county can receive such aid. The act, by its terms, is limited in its operation to counties having a population of 50,000 or more. A similar act, which applied to the whole state, was held by this court to be invalid, because it attempted to confer powers and duties upon the probate judges beyond the jurisdiction authorized by the constitution. Foreman v. Commissioners, 64 Minn. 371, 67 N. W. 207.

By the act here in question, an attempt was made to remove the objections to the prior act pointed out in the case cited. It may be conceded, for the purpose of this appeal only, that such objections were so obviated. But, the act being limited in its operation to a part only of the state, it is manifestly special legislation, and void, unless the attempted classification is a proper one. What is a proper basis of classification for purposes of legislation has been settled by this court, so far as it is practicable to lay down general rules upon the subject. The difficulty lies in the application of the rules to particular cases. A law is general and uniform in its operation which operates equally upon all subjects within the class for which the rule is adopted, provided the classification be a proper one. The legislature, however, cannot adopt an arbitrary classification; for it must be based on some reason suggested by such a difference in the situation and circumstances of the subjects placed in different classes as to disclose the necessity or propriety of different legislation in respect thereto. Any law based upon such classification must embrace all, and exclude none, whose condition and wants render such legislation necessary or appropriate to them as a class. Legislation limited in its relation to particular subdivisions of the state, to be valid, must rest on some characteristic or peculiarity plainly distinguishing the places included from...