Pratts v. City of Duluth
| Decision Date | 29 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | 32270. |
| Citation | 289 N.W. 788,206 Minn. 557 |
| Parties | PRATTS v. CITY OF DULUTH. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Bert Fesler, Judge.
Action by Joseph Pratts against the City of Duluth to recover amount voluntarily contributed by plaintiff and other city employees to the city, as salary reductions. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court .
Officers and employees of municipal corporation who, knowing of city's financial straits and the need for retrenchment have acquiesced in contributions from their salaries to the city by accepting pay checks and signing the payroll, are estopped from subsequently seeking to recover the amounts by which their salaries had been reduced, although the reductions were acted upon by the city by resolution of the council, rather than by municipal ordinance.
John F. Ball, of Duluth, for appellant.
Harry E. Weinberg, City Atty., and Roland J. Henning, Asst. City Atty., all of Duluth, for respondent.
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered upon findings and conclusions by the court. Plaintiff from February 1, 1932, to December 31, 1932, held the office of Sanitary Inspector of the defendant City of Duluth, a duly organized municipal corporation existing under a home rule charter. His compensation was fixed by the council pursuant to authority in the city charter. During the year 1932, the City of Duluth was suffering from economic depression brought on by tax delinquencies and the like. In order to make up deficits in the budget and to foster relief, the council passed a resolution accepting a 5% ‘ voluntary contribution’ from all officers and employes salaried at $90 or more per month. The percentage was later increased to 10%. Plaintiff brings suit for the amount of his own salary thus ‘ voluntarily contributed’ and for amounts similarly contributed by other employes who have duly assigned their claims to him. Plaintiff and his assignors signed statements authorizing ‘ the proper City Officers to deduct a Voluntary Contribution from my wages for a period of six months from February 1st, 1932; ’ and acknowledging ‘ the dire necessity that exists for employment and the conscientious efforts being put forth by the City Council to meet this serious question and at the same time to attempt to solve an overdraft of several thousands of dollars in the City's 1931 Budget without making a straight salary cut in the City's pay rolls or decreasing working forces at a time when it is impossible to obtain any form of employment * * *.’ They also signed the payroll acknowledging assent to the deductions each pay day.
Plaintiff's appeal asserts that the agreements to contribute were void, because contrary to public policy, involuntary, and given for purposes that were never carried out; that there is no estoppel, because estoppel was not pleaded; that there can be no estoppel of an agreement contrary to public policy; and that the facts do not establish estoppel. The trial court found as facts that the contributions were voluntary, that they were devoted to the purposes for which contributed and that plaintiff and his assignors were estopped to make these claims by their conduct herein referred to. These findings are adequately supported by the evidence and are therefore final.
In support of the contention that the contributions were contrary to public policy, plaintiff cites notes in 70 A.L.R 973 and 118 A.L.R. 1458, wherein are listed the majority and minority views on the subject. In discussing the applicability of public policy rules, that annotator in vol. 118 says: The New York case is quoted in some length; in part, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial