Oehler v. City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 18 May 1928
• Docket Number: No. 26819.,26819.
• Citation: 174 Minn. 410,219 N.W. 760
• Parties: OEHLER et al. v. CITY OF ST. PAUL et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

219 N.W. 760

174 Minn. 410

OEHLER et al. v. CITY OF ST. PAUL et al.

No. 26819.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 18, 1928.

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

Suit by Ira C. Oehler and others, taxpayers, against City of St. Paul and others, for an injunction. From an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

See, also, 218 N. W. 234.

Kenny & Gardner, Arthur A. Stewart, and Eugene M. O'Neill, all of St. Paul, for appellants.

John P. Kyle and Richard E. Kyle, both of St. Paul, for respondents.

HILTON, J.

Action by three taxpayers and voters of St. Paul against the city, four city officials, and Clyde R. May. The main purpose of the suit is to prevent May from holding the position of general superintendent and engineer of the water department, to which position he was appointed without examination under the civil service rules. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled; the court gave the statutory certificate of doubt and importance, and this appeal was taken.

The complaint, among other things, alleges that the position in question is in the classified service, and that a vacancy therein must be filled from an eligible list created by competitive examination; that no such list was created; that the civil service commissioner, with the consent of the mayor, arbitrarily and unlawfully suspended competition; that May was appointed under the pretended claim that competition was impracticable, and that the position could best be filled otherwise by selection of some one of recognized attainments, and that it required an incumbent having peculiar and exceptional qualifications of a scientific, professional, or expert character. The complaint, after alleging that it was not impracticable to have competition for the position, that it had been previously filled in that way, and that the position was not one requiring such qualifications, states that May did not have the requisite attainments or the qualifications necessary to fill the position, and that no satisfactory or any evidence was submitted to the officers warranting them in taking the action they did. It further charges that May was appointed by the commissioner of public utilities for reasons personal to himself or to the other officials, without due or proper regard to the public interests; that their acts were wrongful, unlawful, and fraudulent, and in bad faith, for the purpose of evading, subverting, and circumventing the civil service provisions of the charter, and in the interests, and for the benefit, of May, and for the purpose of specially favoring him, to the injury, prejudice, and detriment of the public service, the citizens, and taxpayers, many of whom were better qualified than May to fill the position, and were and are desirous of taking an examination therefor. Further details as to the complaint will appear in the opinion.

The prayer for relief, after alleging that plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and that public moneys will be unlawfully disbursed, unless restrained by the court, asks for such restraint, for the annulment and setting aside of the appointment as unlawful and void, and a restraining of the public officials in a designated manner so as to accomplish the purpose sought by the action as well as a recovery by plaintiffs for the benefit of the city of such moneys as may have been unlawfully paid to May, and for such other and further relief as may be proper.

The questions presented by the demurrer and here to be considered are: (1) Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? (2) Does it appear on the face of the complaint that the plaintiffs have no legal capacity to sue? (3) Does it appear on the face of the complaint that several causes of action are improperly united? and (4) Does it appear on the face of the complaint that the court has not jurisdiction over the subject of the action?

1. Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? We think it does. "A demurrer admits all material facts well pleaded, all the inferences of fact which may fairly be made therefrom, and all the necessary legal inferences which arise from the facts pleaded." Harriet State Bank v. Samels, 164 Minn. 265, 204 N. W. 938. We take judicial notice of the home rule charter of the city of St. Paul. White Townsite Co. v. Moorhead, 120 Minn. 1, 138 N. W. 939. The complaint refers to ordinances adopted under said charter. The trial court refers particularly to certain of them containing civil service rules and regulations. The home rule charter of the city of St. Paul properly embraced civil service provisions as a matter of municipal concern. They were as effective as would have been a legislative act. State ex rel. Hilton v. Essling, 157 Minn. 15, 20, 195 N. W. 539.

Section 100 of the charter provides that the unclassified service shall consist of:

"a. All officers elected by the people. b. All heads of executive departments. c. A secretary for the mayor and one deputy for the head of each executive department. d. The superintendent and all teachers, instructors and principals of the public schools."

It further provides:

"The classified service shall include all other offices now existing, and all officers and employees holding places not excepted from said service. It shall also include all other offices which may hereafter be created unless expressly excepted therefrom."

Persons working in the water department of the city of St. Paul are city employees, and subject to the civil service rules and regulations. We cannot agree with appellants' contention that the general superintendent and engineer of the water department is the head of an executive department. The position is not created or named as the head of an executive department by an ordinance, and is not within the positions listed in the unclassified service.

It must therefore come within the classified service. Although not necessarily determinative, it is significant that the civil service rules and classifications actually place the position in the classified service, giving it the highest grade therein (grade 13). The position held by May in this service for four years immediately prior to the appointment complained of was that of transit man (grade 6), and for two years prior thereto he filled the lesser position of rod man, or surveyor's assistant. On March 12, 1927, he made an application for examination for the position of surveyor (grade 7), but was rejected, for the reason "Lacks entrance requirements." The civil service regulations require that, in order to hold the position here involved, the applicant must be: "(3) (a) College graduate in engineering, business or law, with ten years of engineering or executive experience"; and for experience must have had "(4) (a) 5 years as civil or sanitary engineer in positions of major responsibility. General experience in civil or sanitary engineering." The equivalents for such experience are: "High school graduate with ten years' experience in engineering to be equivalent of (3) (a). Ten years as an executive officer or manager of a large business or enterprise, in which applicant has demonstrated that he has ability to successfully manage a large business, to be equivalent of (4)." Further: "Applicant must have good knowledge of modern water supply development and administration." A long list is given of the duties incident to the position, including general supervision of operation and maintenance of the water bureau; planning future extensions and betterments to the system; supervision of preparation of plans and specifications and to direct all construction work done by the bureau; supervision of the purchasing of supplies and materials; acting as technical advisor to the commissioner of public utilities; direction of accounting procedure and plan of keeping records; responsibility of efficient pumping operations; responsibility for efficient purification and filtration of water; responsibility for upkeep and maintenance of all buildings, reservoirs, tanks, land, lakes, conduits, canals, mains, service connections, meters, equipment, and other waterworks appurtenances; and responsibility for supplies, stores, and their accounting.

The complaint alleges that May had only a grade school education, and that he claimed a one-year correspondence school course in engineering, and further alleges that he lacked practically all the necessary qualifications and experience.

Section 102 of the charter provides:

"In case of a vacancy in any office which requires peculiar or exceptional qualifications of a scientific, professional or expert character, and upon satisfactory evidence that competition is impracticable, and that the office can best be filled by the selection of some designated person of recognized attainments, the...