St. Paul v. Troyer

• Decision Date: 01 January 1999
• Parties: CITY OF ST. PAUL vs. DOMINIC TROYER.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

3 Minn. 200

(3 Minn. R. p. 291.)

CITY OF ST. PAULvs.

DOMINIC TROYER.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Error to district court, Ramsey County.

This was a prosecution for violating an ordinance of the City of St. Paul, commenced before the city justice of said city, where defendant was convicted. On appeal to the district court, the judgment of the justice was reversed. The ordinance was as follows: "No person shall vend, dispose of, traffic or deal in, or give away, any spirituous, vinous, fermented, or intoxicating liquors, in, or at, any place or house within the limits of the City of St. Paul, without having first obtained a license for that purpose, from the common council of said city;" and it provided a penalty for its violation.

The case was submitted to the district court upon facts stipulated in substance as follows: The defendant is a brewer within the limits of said city, engaged in the manufacture of beer, and has been, and is, engaged in selling beer by the cask or barrel at wholesale to his customers residing within said city; that he sold and delivered to one of his customers within said city, a licensed retail dealer in beer and spirituous liquors, a keg of lager beer, by the keg; and that he had not obtained any license from the city.

Points and authorities for plaintiff in error; The court below erred in rendering judgment against the City of St. Paul: —

1. Because the facts agreed on showed that the case was within the ordinance referred to.

2. Because it appeared that said ordinance was authorized by the charter of said city.

3. Because the branch of business in which the defendant was engaged was a legitimate subject of regulation, and the ordinance was a reasonable regulation of such branch of business.

Points and authorities for the defendant in error: —

1. The charter of the City of St. Paul does not (and could not, if such provisions were contained therein) authorize the passage of the ordinance under which defendant is prosecuted.

2. The charter only gives, and the legislature can only confer, authority to the municipal corporation to make police and sanatory regulations; and such regulations must be subordinate to the constitutional rights of the citizen, and not inconsistent with the statute and common law of the land. The ordinance in question is subversive of these rights, and inconsistent with the laws of the state.

3. If the right to license the manufacturer of fermented liquors and to prohibit him selling without a license exists, no ordinance has yet been passed to that effect; and the defendant, as shown by the agreed facts, is not within said ordinance.

Henry J. Horn, for plaintiff in error.

Smith & Gilman, for defendant in error.

FLANDRAU, J.

The charter of the City of St. Paul authorizes the common council of that city, by ordinances, resolutions, or by-laws, among other things, to "grant licenses and regulate * * groceries, taverns, victualling houses, and all persons vending or dealing in spirituous, vinous, or fermented liquors; provided, that the license for so dealing in or vending spirituous or fermented liquors shall not be less than fifty dollars a year; that no license shall be granted for a less term than one year; and all licenses shall commence and terminate on the second Tuesday of May in each year." Under and by virtue of this provision of the charter, the common council passed an ordinance which provides "that no person or persons shall sell, vend, dispose of, traffic or deal in, or give away, any spirituous, vinous, fermented, or intoxicating...