State ex rel. Andrews v. Beach
| Decision Date | 16 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 23427.,23427. |
| Citation | 155 Minn. 33,191 N.W. 1012 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ANDREWS v. BEACH, Mayor, et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Blue Earth County; W. L. Comstock, Judge.
Mandamus by the State, on the relation of J. W. Andrews, against W. A. Beach, as Mayor, and others, as Councilmen of the City of Mankato. From a judgment quashing an alternative writ, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Neither the governing body of a city nor the courts have any supervisory powers over the form of amendments to a home rule charter, prepared by a board of freeholders appointed by virtue of section 1343, Gen. St. 1913.
The provisions of section 1350, Gen. St. 1913, with reference to the submission of amendments to home rule charters are mandatory. It is the absolute duty of a city council to submit such amendments, subject possibly to the qualification that they need not be submitted if it is apparent that they are not in harmony with the Constitution or laws of this state.
The failure of a city council to submit such amendments as directed by statute does not put an end to the duty to submit them or call a special election to vote on them. Such election may be held at the same time as the general city election and may be conducted by the same election officers. C. O. Dailey, of Mankato, for appellant.
C. E. Gilmore, City Atty., of Mankato, for respondents.
Appeal from a judgment quashing an alternative writ of mandamus by which respondents were required to publish and submit at a special election certain amendments to the charter of the city of Mankato. The facts were set forth in the writ as follows:
Mankato has a home rule charter, adopted in the year 1910. In May, 1922, and within six months of the general election held in November following, the board of freeholders, appointed by virtue of section 1343, G. S. 1913, delivered the draft of the proposed amendments to respondents, the mayor and councilmen of the city. The amendments were not published or submitted at the November election, and respondents declined to call a special election at which they might be submitted. In their answer, respondents admitted the facts to be as above stated and alleged that their action was lawful. Referring to a so-called policewoman amendment, they alleged that they were willing to submit it at the general city election to be held in April, 1923. The court's order was filed December 21, 1922, and was accompanied by a memorandum in which it was said that one of the amendments was so worded as to be of uncertain meaning; that there was a failure to make provision for the nomination at the primary election of candidates for the offices of judge and special judge of the municipal court of Mankato; and that an amendment relating to the procedure in levying assessments for the cost of laying watermains referred to charter provisions dealing with the power of eminent domain instead of special assessments. The opinion was expressed that the requirement of certainty in legislative enactments had not been observed; that this was a matter to be considered by the court, and it was suggested that the amendments be referred back to the board of freeholders for reconsideration and clarification, and then returned to respondents for submission at the general city election in April, 1923.
[1] It was the duty of the council to submit the amendments at the November general election, if the facts are as stated in the writ. Respondents' brief informs us that there are glaring defects in the proposed amendments which were publicly pointed out and called to the attention of the attorney for the board of freeholders, in time to permit corrections to be made and the revised amendments submitted at the November election, but the board refused to rewrite them and has continued to insist that the mayor and council should call an election and submit them in their present form. These are matters outside the record and not for the consideration of the courts. It is not within the province of the governing body of a city or of a court to pass judgment on the quality of the work done by a board of freeholders. Such boards may and sometimes do write charter provisions or amendments which are of doubtful meaning, or amendments which do not dovetail into charter provisions left untouched. In a word, although the work of the board may have been badly done,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bicking v. City of Minneapolis
...regardless of the election, because the amendment is unconstitutional or contrary to state law. See State ex rel. Andrews v. Beach , 155 Minn. 33, 35, 191 N.W. 1012, 1013 (1923) ("A home rule charter and all amendments thereto must be in harmony with the Constitution and laws of this state.......
-
First Baptist Church of St. Paul v. City of St. Paul
...charter and acts undertaken by the city thereunder must be “in harmony” with the Minnesota Constitution. State ex rel. Andrews v. Beach, 155 Minn. 33, 35, 191 N.W. 1012, 1013 (1923). Whatever a city's charter may say, a municipality may not violate the state constitution. See In re Concord ......
-
Vasseur v. City of Minneapolis, A16–1367.
...up election machinery and going to the polls in a process which was ultimately destined to be futile”); State ex rel. Andrews v. Beach, 155 Minn. 33, 35–36, 191 N.W. 1012, 1013 (1923).Second, Markley does not speak to the scope of permissible regulations in a municipal charter and it theref......
-
Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis
...act. Two Minnesota cases support our conclusion that it was proper for the trial court to enjoin the election. State ex rel. Andrews v. Beach, 155 Minn. 33, 191 N.W. 1012 (1923); Winget v. Holm, 187 Minn. 78, 244 N.W. 331 (1932). In Andrews we held that mandamus would lie to require the cit......