State ex rel. Brandt v. Thompson

• Citation: 91 Minn. 279
• Decision Date: 08 January 1904
• Docket Number: Nos. 13,790 - (219).,s. 13,790 - (219).
• Parties: STATE ex rel. J. F. BRANDT v. HUGH THOMPSON and Others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

91 Minn. 279

STATE ex rel. J. F. BRANDT v. HUGH THOMPSON and Others.¹

Nos. 13,790 - (219).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 8, 1904.

Alternative writ of prohibition issued from the Supreme Court upon relation of J. F. Brandt, enjoining defendants, as members of the city council of the city of East Grand Forks, from removing relator from the office of mayor of said city. Writ absolute granted.

F. C. Massee, G. A. E. Finlayson, and Martin O'Brien, for relator.

Bronson & Margeson and Guy C. H. Corliss, for respondents.

BROWN, J.

Writ of prohibition to the city council of East Grand Forks.

The facts are as follows: Relator is, and since January, 1902, has been, the mayor of East Grand Forks, this state, and respondents are members of the city council. On November 1, 1903, respondents, acting officially, instituted proceedings to remove relator from his office as mayor, and this writ was sued out to restrain and enjoin them from further proceedings therein. The only question presented for our consideration is whether respondents, as the city council, have power to take cognizance of charges against the mayor, and to hear and determine the same, and remove him from office, if satisfied that a case for removal exists.

The city of East Grand Forks was originally incorporated by Sp. Laws 1887, p. 602 (c. 45), and continued under the authority there granted until 1898, when it became reincorporated or reorganized under Laws 1895, p. 16 (c. 8), and it is now acting under and by virtue of that law. Under its original act of incorporation the council, as governing body of the municipality, possessed no power to remove an elective officer from office. That act provides for the removal of appointive officers, but no authority for the removal of those elected by the people; and it is not contended that respondents are proceeding by authority of any provision of that act. Nor is it claimed that such authority is conferred by Laws 1895, p. 16 (c. 8). Provision is made in that act for the removal by the council of appointive officers, but authority so to act is limited to that class of officers. As to elective officers, section 52 provides that any officer or employee of the city who shall offend against any of the provisions of the act, or otherwise be guilty of misconduct in office, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and punished as misdemeanors are punished by the laws of the state, and also "forfeit his office and be forever disqualified from holding any office of trust or profit under the city government." This section is general, and applies to all classes of officers, and is the only method provided by the act of 1895 for the removal of elective officers. The commission of an act constituting misconduct in office, and such as to justify removal, is declared a misdemeanor, and the forfeiture of office results from conviction of the offense.

But it is claimed that section 1051, G. S. 1894, applies and fully authorizes the contemplated proceedings. That section is a part of Laws 1870, p. 56 (c. 31), entitled "An act to authorize the incorporation of cities." The question presented is whether it applies to cities incorporated under Laws 1895, p. 16 (c. 8). This section provides that any person appointed to public...