Schmidt v. Gould

• Decision Date: 15 July 1927
• Docket Number: No. 25995.,25995.
• Citation: 215 N.W. 215,172 Minn. 179
• Parties: SCHMIDT et al. v. GOULD, State Game and Fish Commissioner.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

215 N.W. 215

172 Minn. 179

SCHMIDT et al. v. GOULD, State Game and Fish Commissioner.

No. 25995.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 15, 1927.

Appeal from District Court, Koochiching County; B. F. Wright, Judge.

Suit by Arthur Schmidt and others against J. F. Gould, State Game and Fish Commissioner, for an injunction. From an order discharging an order to show cause why a temporary injunction should not be issued pending the action, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

David Hurlburt, of International Falls, for appellants.

Clifford L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., and Chester S. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

WILSON, C. J.

Plaintiffs appealed from an order discharging an order to show cause why a temporary injunction should not be issued during the pendency of the action.

The action was instituted to restrain the defendant from enforcing an order made by him pursuant to G. S. 1923, § 5630, to reserve all the waters of Rainy Lake within the confines of the county of Koochiching for fish propagation. Plaintiffs are local commercial fishermen.

1. A temporary injunction will not be granted, unless it clearly appears that there is an immediate prospect that plaintiffs would otherwise suffer an irreparable injury. 1 High on Injunctions (4th Ed.) § 109; Schurmeier v. St. P. & P. R. R. Co., 8 Minn. 113 (Gil. 88) 83 Am. Dec. 770; Pineo v. Heffelfinger, 29 Minn. 183, 12 N. W. 522; Knoblauch v. City of Minneapolis, 56 Minn. 321, 57 N. W. 928; Stees v. Kranz, 32 Minn. 313, 20 N. W. 241.

Our statute specifies when a temporary injunction may be granted. G. S. 1923, § 9386. The granting thereof rests in the discretion of the court, which considers the relative injury and inconvenience which may be likely to result to the parties. In the absence of an abuse of discretion, the action of the trial court will be sustained. Potter v. Engler, 130 Minn. 510, 153 N. W. 1088; Borough of Belle Plaine v. Northern Power Co., 142 Minn. 361, 172 N. W. 217; Neill v. City of Red Wing, 156 Minn. 467, 195 N. W. 145. Especially is this true where the evidence is conflicting and no irreparable injury impends. Neill v. City of Red Wing, supra. As said in Mpls. Electric Lamp Co. v. Fed. Holding Co., 161 Minn. 198, 201 N. W. 324:

"This court will interfere when the trial court refuses a temporary injunction, only when, in the absence of such relief, an injury will result which the court should prevent. Where the facts are in dispute and the legal rights of the parties are left in doubt, the action of the court in granting temporary injunction for the protection of rights pending the suit will rarely be interfered with on an appeal."

We find nothing to indicate an abuse of discretion.

2. Plaintiffs contend, however, that the abuse of discretion is grounded in their claim that the statute under which the commissioner made his order is unconstitutional.

The Legislature cannot delegate its authority to make a law. It may, however, authorize a commissioner or departmental head to do things which it might properly, but cannot conveniently or advantageously, do itself. It is not every grant of power, involving the exercise of discretion and judgment, that amounts to a delegation of legislative power. State v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 38 Minn. 281, 299, 37 N. W. 782; Williams v. Evans, 139 Minn. 32, 41, 165 N. W. 495, 166 N. W. 504, L. R. A. 1918F, 542; 12 C. J. 848, § 333. The Legislature declared the law and policy of such propagation in conservation of our natural resources. The commissioner is informed as to the requirements and necessary condition for successful spawning beds. This law relates to details concerning a very limited area of waters of the state. Obviously the selection of the waters to be used, which involves technical knowledge, cannot conveniently or advantageously be made by the Legislature itself. It is wholly for the public welfare, and hence a liberal construction is demanded. Indeed, in our opinion, this statute is justified constitutionally, in this respect on the ground that the power granted is only a determination of details in the nature of the administration of the game laws. The commissioner did not make the law. He merely acted as the agent of the Legislature in selecting the necessary and appropriate waters for the purpose of carrying out the laws made by the...