Snider v. City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 02 December 1892
• Citation: 53 N.W. 763,51 Minn. 466
• Parties: SNIDER v CITY OF ST. PAUL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

51 Minn. 466

53 N.W. 763

SNIDERvCITY OF ST. PAUL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 2, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The duty of providing and maintaining a city hall for the use of the city officers is a public and governmental use, for the negligence of its agents or servants in the discharge of which the city of St. Paul is not liable in a private action.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; KELLY, Judge.

Action by Jennie Snider against the city of St. Paul for damages for injuries resulting from defendant's negligence. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

B. H. Schriber, for appellant.

D. W. Lawler, J. C. Michael, and Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The complaint alleges that the city of St. Paul and the county of Ramsey owned and possessed, as tenants in common, a building known as the “Courthouse and City Hall;” that they negligently constructed the entrance to one of the elevator shafts in an unsafe manner; also that their servant in charge of the elevator handled it negligently, whereby the plaintiff was injured. As one of its defenses, the city pleaded the various statutes regulating the construction, custody, and use of the building, particularly Sp. Laws 1881, c. 376, and Sp. Laws 1889, c. 64. Briefly stated, the act of 1881 created a special courthouse commission, consisting of the mayor of the city of St. Paul (who was ex officio a member) and five other persons, to be appointed by the judges of the district court of Ramsey county. This commission was to prepare plans for a building for the use of the city and county “for a city hall and county courthouse, and for offices for the city and county officers, and such other public uses as may be deemed expedient,” and submit the same, together with an estimate of the cost, to the board of county commissioners and the common council of the city for their approval. Upon their approval of the plans the commission was to proceed and construct the building, which was to be paid for out of the proceeds of a fund called “the courthouse and city hall building fund,” which was to be raised by the issue and sale of bonds of the city and of the county. The act further provided that the city and county “shall hold the land occupied and needed for said building, together with the building which may be erected thereon, in common, and for the public uses aforesaid.” The act of 1889 provided that when completed the building should be placed in charge of a committee of seven, to be appointed as follows: Three annually by the president of the common council, and three annually by the chairman of the board of county commissioners; and that the mayor of the city should be ex officio a member and the chairman of the committee. This committee was to have entire charge of the building, with power to appoint such janitor, custodian, and other employes as they should deem necessary for the proper care and management of the building. The answer also alleges that the city has never had any control over either the construction or custody of the building, which have been entirely under the direction and control of the courthouse commission and committee referred to. The court overruled a demurrer to this defense, placing its decision on two general grounds: First, that the special courthouse commission which constructed the building, and the committee which has charge of it, were independent bodies, and not the agents or servants of the city, and hence that the city was not liable for their negligence; second, that even if the city had controlled the construction and custody of the building, it would, in so doing, have been performing merely a governmental duty for the benefit of the public, for any negligence in the...