Nichols v. H. Walter
| Decision Date | 25 July 1887 |
| Citation | 33 N.W. 800,37 Minn. 264 |
| Parties | Browning Nichols v. H. Walter and others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The plaintiff, a citizen, freeholder, and tax-payer of the county of Lac qui Parle, brought this action in the district court for that county, to restrain the defendants, who are the county officers, from removing the county-seat from Lac qui Parle to Madison. A temporary writ of injunction was granted by a court commissioner. The defendants answered, setting out proceedings had under the provisions of Laws 1885, c. 272, by which the county-seat was changed from Lac qui Parle to Madison. Plaintiff appeals from an order by Brown, J dissolving the injunction.
Order reversed.
Cole Bramhall & Morris, for appellant, cited City of Topeka v Gillett, 32 Kan. 431, 436; State v. Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 592, 607; Devine v. Commrs., 84 Ill 590; State v. Hammer, 42 N. J. Law, 435; Smith v. Judge, 17 Cal. 547; State v. Herrmann, 75 Mo. 340; People v. Cooper, 83 Ill. 585, 591; State v. Judges, 21 Ohio St. 1, 11; Scowden's Appeal, 96 Pa. St. 422; Rutgers v. New Brunswick, 42 N. J. Law, 51; People v. Albertson, 55 N.Y. 50, 55; Division of Howard Co., 15 Kan. 194; Com. v. Patton, 88 Pa. St. 258; Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. St. 338; Kilgore v. Magee, 85 Pa. St. 401; Desmond v. Dunn, 55 Cal. 242, 251; Earle v. Board, Id. 489; Cooley, Const. Lim. 178, 179, note 1; Warren v. Mayor, 2 Gray, 84; Slauson v. City of Racine, 13 Wis. 398; State v. Commrs., 5 Ohio St. 497, 507; Allen v. Louisiana, 103 U.S. 80; Eckhart v. State, 5 W.Va. 515; Cowing v. Peterson, 36 Minn. 130, (30 N.W. 461.)
J. D. Springer and Kerr & Richardson, for respondents.
Laws 1885, c. 272, is constitutional. Cooley, Const. Lim. (5th Ed.) pp. 482, 153, 154, notes and cases cited; Sedgwick, Stat. and Const. Law, (2d Ed.) notes on pp. 528-30, 534-6 and cases cited; State v. Berka, 20 Neb. 375, (30 N.W. 267;) State v. Graham, 16 Neb. 74, (19 N.W. 470;) City of New Orleans v. Kaufman, 29 La. An. 283; Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. St. 338; Allen v. Hirsch, 8 Ore. 412; Ex parte Wells, 21 Fla. 280; Welker v. Potter, 18 Ohio St. 85; Bourland v. Hildreth, 26 Cal. 161; Brooks v. Hyde, 37 Cal. 366; Jackson v. Shawl, 29 Cal. 267; State v. Parkinson, 5 Nev. 15; Ensworth v. Albin, 46 Mo. 450; Smith v. Judge, 17 Cal. 547; McAunich v. Miss. & Mo. R. Co., 20 Iowa 338; Herrick v. Minn. & St. Louis Ry. Co., 31 Minn. 11; U. S. Ex. Co. v. Ellyson, 28 Iowa 370; Haskell v. City of Burlington, 30 Iowa 232; Iowa R., etc., Co. v. Soper, 39 Iowa 112; Ex parte Lichtenstein, 67 Cal. 359; Van Riper v. Parsons, 40 N. J. Law, 123; Anderson v. City of Trenton, 42 N. J. Law, 486; Unity v. Burrage, 103 U.S. 447; 1 Kent's Comm. (12th Ed.) 460; Potter's Dwarris on Statutes, 50; 2 Abbott's Law Dict. 500; 1 Cooley's Blackstone, 86, notes; State v. Lean, 9 Wis. 279; Von Phul v. Hammer, 29 Iowa 222; Nelson v. McArthur, 38 Mich. 204; Matter of N. Y. Elevated R. Co., 70 N.Y. 327; People v. Chautauqua, 43 N.Y. 10; Village of Winooski v. Gokey, 49 Vt. 282; Georgia R. Co. v. Ivey, 73 Ga. 499; Heridia v. Ayres, 12 Pick. 334, 344; Calking v. Baldwin, 4 Wend. 667, (21 Am. Dec. 168;) McLain v. Mayor, 3 Daly, 32; People v. Davis, 61 Barb. 456; Pierce v. Kimball, 8 Greenl. 54, (23 Am. Dec. 537;) Burnham v. Webster, 5 Mass. 266; Brown v. State, 73 Ga. 38; State v. Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 592; State v. Herrmann, 75 Mo. 340; Earle v. Board of Ed., 55 Cal. 489; State v. Hammer, 42 N. J. Law, 435; Devine v. Commissioners, 84 Ill. 590; Scowden's Appeal, 96 Pa. St. 422; Hingle v. State, 24 Ind. 28; Goodrich v. Winchester, etc., Co., 26 Ind. 119; Groesch v. State, 42 Ind. 547; Hanlon v. Commissioners, 53 Ind. 123; Ex parte Smith, 38 Cal. 702; Brooks v. Hyde, 37 Cal. 367; People v. Judge, 17 Cal. 548; State v. Reitz, 62 Ind. 159; McCormick v. Rusch, 15 Iowa 127, (83 Am. Dec. 401;) State v. King, 37 Iowa 462; Cricket v. State, 18 Ohio St. 9.
But even if the proviso and the clause prohibiting the submission of the question in five years in case of an adverse vote were conceded to be in conflict with the constitution, they are independent and separable provisions of the act, and the remainder can stand by itself and be enforced. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. State, 29 Ala. 573; South, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 65 Ala. 193; Lowndes Co. v. Hunter, 49 Ala. 507; Ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 77; Powell v. State, 72 Ala. 194, (14 Cent. Law J. 134;) Morrison v. State, 40 Ark. 448; State v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 290; Berlin v. New Britain, 9 Conn. 175; Tripp v. Overocker, 7 Col. 72; Com. v. Owen, Id. 467, (4 P. 795;) Coulter v. Board, 9 Col. 258, (11 P. 199;) People v. Hill, 7 Cal. 97; Rood v. McCargar, 49 Cal. 117; Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379; People v. McCreary, 34 Cal. 432; Maclay v. Love, 25 Cal. 368, (85 Am. Dec. 133;) Mills v. Sargent, 36 Cal. 379; Ex parte Frazer, 54 Cal. 94; Ex parte Wells, 21 Fla. 280; State v. Brown, 19 Fla. 563; McConihe v. McMurray, 17 Fla. 238; Mayor v. State, 4 Ga. 26; Robinson v. Bank of Darien, 18 Ga. 65; McArthur v. State, 69 Ga. 444; Prothro v. Orr, 12 Ga. 36; McCulloch v. State, 11 Ind. 424; Armstrong v. Jackson, 1 Blackf. 374, 210, (12 Am. Dec. 225;) Clark v. Ellis, 2 Blackf. 8; Board of Commrs. v. Silvers, 22 Ind. 491; Meshmeier v. State, 11 Ind. 482; Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342; Madison, etc., R. Co. v. Whiteneck, 8 Ind. 217; State v. Newton, 59 Ind. 173; Nelson v. People, 33 Ill. 390; Knox Co. v. Davis, 63 Ill. 405; Myers v. People, 67 Ill. 503; People v. Brown, 11 Ill. 478; Willard v. People, 4 Scam. 461; Eells v. People, Id. 498; Santo v. State, 2 Iowa, 165, (63 Am. Dec. 487;) Wier v. Cram, 37 Iowa 649; Ely v. Thompson, 3 A. K. Marsh. 70; Turner v. Commrs., 27 Kan. 314; Williams v. Payson, 14 La. An. 7; Moore v. City of New Orleans, 32 La. An. 726; Andrews v. Saucier, 13 La. An. 301; State v. Exnicios, 33 La. An. 253; State v. Crowley, Id. 782; Com. v. Hutchings, 5 Gray, 482; Com. v. Clapp, Id. 97; Com. v. Pomeroy, Id. 486; Fisher v. McGirr, 1 Gray, 1, (61 Am. Dec. 381;) Warren v. Mayor, 2 Gray, 84; Wellington et al., Petitioners, 16 Pick. 87, (26 Am. Dec. 631;) Com. v. Kimball, 24 Pick. 359, (35 Am. Dec. 326;) Norris v. City of Boston, 4 Met. 282, 288; Mundy v. Monroe, 1 Mich. 68; Cargill v. Power, Id. 369; Carleton v. People, 10 Mich. 250; Atty. Gen. v. Ames, 27 N.W. 571; O'Brien v. Krenz, 36 Minn. 136, (30 N.W. 458;) Miss. & R. R. Boom Co. v. Prince, 34 Minn. 79, (24 N.W. 361;) State v. District Court, 33 Minn. 235, (22 N.W. 625;) State v. Kinsella, 14 Minn. 395, (524;) Yarmouth v. North Yarmouth, 34 Me. 411, (56 Am. Dec. 666;) Davis v. State, 7 Md. 151, (61 Am. Dec. 331;) State v. Co. Commrs., 29 Md. 516, 521; Mayor v. Dechert, 32 Md. 369; Berry v. Balt., etc., R. Co., 41 Md. 446; Regents, etc., v. Williams, 9 Gill & J. 365, (31 Am. Dec. 72;) State v. Clarke, 54 Mo. 17; City of St. Louis v. St. Louis R. Co., 14 Mo.App. 221; Brown v. Beatty, 34 Miss. 227, (69 Am. Dec. 389;) People v. Lawrence, 36 Barb. 177; People v. Briggs, 50 N.Y. 553; In the Matter of Middleton, 82 N.Y. 196; People v. Kenney, 96 N.Y. 294; People v. Bull, 46 N.Y. 57; Baker v. Braman, 6 Hill, 47, (40 Am. Dec. 387;) Harris v. Supervisors, 33 Hun, 279; Duer v. Small, 17 How. Pr. 201; People v. Perley, 80 N.Y. 624; In the Matter of Met. Gaslight Co., 85 N.Y. 526; Matter of Sackett St., 74 N.Y. 95; State v. Estabrook, 3 Nev. 173; State v. Harris, 8 P. 462; Evans v. Job, 8 Nev. 322; State v. Swift, 11 Nev. 128; Turner v. Fish, 9 P. 884; Gamble v. McCrady, 75 N.C. 509; State v. Kelsey, 44 N. J. Law, 1; Rockport v. Walden, 54 N.H. 167; Exchange Bank v. Hines, 3 Ohio St. 1; State v. Dombaugh, 20 Ohio St. 167; Fleischner v. Chadwick, 5 Or. 152; Dewhurst v. City of Alleghany, 95 Pa. St. 437; Wynkoop v. Cooch, 89 Pa. St. 450; Allegheny Co. Home's Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 77; Lea v. Bumm, 83 Pa. St. 237; Smith v. McCarthy, 56 Pa. St. 359; State v. Copeland, 3 R. I. 33; State v. Snow, Id. 64; State v. Amery, 12 R. I. 64; State v. Allen, 2 McCord, 55; Tillman v. Cocke, 9 Bax. 429; Quimby v. Hazen, 54 Vt. 132; Lynch v. Steamer Economy, 27 Wis. 69; State v. Hundhausen, 26 Wis. 432; Wakeley v. Mohr, 15 Wis. 609; Kennedy v. Mil. & St. Paul Ry. Co., 22 Wis. 581; State v. Tuttle, 53 Wis. 45; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Pet. 492; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U.S. 123; Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122; Railroad Companies v. Schutte, 103 U.S. 118; Allen v. Louisiana, Id. 80; Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U.S. 80; Sedg. Stat. & Const. Law, 413; Cooley, Const. Lim. *178; Minis v. U.S. 15 Pet. 423, 445; Boone v. Juliet, 1 Scam. 258; Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 30; Voorhees v. Bank of U.S. 10 Pet. 449; Potter's Dwarris on Statutes, 118-120; 1 Kent, Comm., (12th Ed.) 462-3; Leavenworth Co. v. Miller, 7 Kan. 479, 499.
In 1881 an amendment to the constitution was adopted, adding to article 4 two sections, 33 and 34.
Section 1 of article 11 of the constitution provides: "All laws changing county lines in counties already organized, or for removing county-seats, shall, before taking effect, be submitted to the electors of the county or counties to be affected thereby at the next general election after the passage thereof, and be adopted by a majority of such electors." Laws 1885, c. 272 provided a mode for changing county-seats by the county commissioners submitting to the electors of the county the proposition to change the county-seat. Section 6 of that chapter...
To continue reading
Request your trial