State ex rel. Banner Grain Co. v. Houghton

• Decision Date: 14 February 1919
• Docket Number: No. 21027.,21027.
• Citation: 170 N.W. 853,142 Minn. 28
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BANNER GRAIN CO. v. HOUGHTON, Inspector of Buildings.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

142 Minn. 28

170 N.W. 853

STATE ex rel. BANNER GRAIN CO.

v.HOUGHTON, Inspector of Buildings.

No. 21027.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 14, 1919.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; E. F. Waite, Judge.

Application by the State, on relation of the Banner Grain Company, for writ of mandamus against James G. Houghton, as Inspector of Buildings. Writ denied, and relator appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Upon appeal in mandamus proceedings to compel the issuance of a permit for the erection of a factory within a prescribed residential district in a city of the first class, the order of the trial court will be reversed only where there is no evidence reasonably tending to sustain the findings of the trial court.

In a city of the first class, a residence district having been established, one asking permission to erect a factory therein has the burden to show that the proposed industry will not impair or seriously interfere with a proper enjoyment of the property in such district for residential purposes. Jessie Van Valkenburg, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

C. D. Gould, R. S. Wiggin, and W. G. Compton, all of Minneapolis, for respondent.

QUINN, J.

The city of Minneapolis has, by ordinance, designated a certain area within its limits as a residential district, forbidding the erection or operation of factories or industrial plants therein. The relator, Banner Grain Company, since the adoption of this ordinance, purchased a parcel of ground bordering 149.4 feet upon the right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Company, within such prescribed area, for the purpose of erecting thereon a mill in which to manufacture graham flour, cornmeal, chicken feed, and dairy foods.

The relator applied to the proper officers of the city for permission to erect thereon a cereal mill 34x38 in size and 40 feet high to the eaves, on a concrete foundation and covered with corrugated, galvanized iron and fireproof roofing, the same to contain a Monitor dust collection system, and to be provided with the most modern machinery, at a cost of something like $25,000, the purpose being to make the building as near dust and noise proof and as free from fire hazard, as possible. The plans and specifications were approved by the building inspector in so far as the structure was concerned, but the building permit was refused solely because the location was within the residential district.

The relator brings this proceeding to compel the issuance of a permit upon the propositions: First, that the district in question is not, in fact, a residential disfrict,...