Petition for Construction of a Lateral, In re
| Decision Date | 23 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 37648,37648 |
| Citation | 256 Minn. 450,99 N.W.2d 63 |
| Parties | PETITION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LATERAL TO CONNECT WITH JUDICIAL DITCH NO. 7 OF MARTIN AND FARIBAULT COUNTIES, Minnesota. James F. SMITH et al., Appellants, v. Adolph F. LAUE et al., objectors, Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Statutory construction lies wholly in the domain of ambiguity. If there is no ambiguity there is no need for construction. Where the words used in the statute are clear and free from ambiguity the language used by the legislature must be given its ordinary and usual meaning.
2. When the legislature by the 1953 amendment to M.S.A. 106.521 changed the wording from lands 'affected by' the lateral to lands to be 'drained by' the lateral, it meant that the lands must be actually drained rather than merely affected by the lateral.
Putnam & Spencer, Rector H. Putnam, Blue Earth, for appellants.
Edman & Edman, A. T. Edman, Fairmont, for respondents.
Appeal from an order of the district court.
The only legal issue raised on this appeal is: In a proceeding for the construction of a lateral to a public ditch running into two counties, where the lateral is designed to drain lands lying only in one county, does jurisdiction lie with the district court or with the county board?
Appellants assign as error that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition on the grounds that the district court is without jurisdiction to establish a lateral in this proceeding.
The statement of facts as outlined by both parties in their briefs is as follows: Judicial Ditch No. 7 of Martin and Faribault Counties runs into two counties, Martin and Faribault. The present petition is for the construction of a lateral to drain certain lands in Faribault County into the judicial ditch. Proceedings leading up to preliminary hearing were held. After the hearing the court dismissed the petition and stated in its order:
'It appearing to the Court that all of the land in Minnesota to be drained by the proposed lateral is situated in Faribault County and that the County Board of Faribault County, rather than the District Court, has jurisdiction of the proceedings,
'It is ordered that the petition herein be, and the same hereby is, in all things, dismissed.'
This is the second time that the precise facts in this controversy have been before this court. In In re Petition for Construction of Lateral to Connect with Judicial Ditch No. 7, Martin and Faribault Counties, 238 Minn. 165, 56 N.W.2d 435, 57 N.W.2d 29, filed December 19, 1952, we held that under the then existing statute, M.S.A.1949, § 106.521, the county board of Faribault County was without jurisdiction and that the sole jurisdiction lay with the district court. At that time the pertinent portion of § 106.521 read as follows:
(Italics supplied.)
By L.1953, c. 531, the legislature changed a portion of the pertinent part of the statute quoted above to read 'If the lands to be Drained by the lateral are situated in one county' instead of 'If the lands Affected by the lateral are situated in one county.' (Italics supplied.)
It is appellants' contention that the 1953 act was simply a clarification and was not intended to change the effect of the decision of this court in In re Petition for Construction of Lateral to Connect with Judicial Ditch No. 7, Martin and Faribault Counties, supra. On the other hand, respondents claim that the above case was decided December 19, 1952, and that subsequently, in the legislative session of...
To continue reading
Request your trial