State ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

• Decision Date: 16 May 1887
• Parties: STATE EX REL. MCCARTHY v FITZGERALD.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

37 Minn. 26

32 N.W. 788

STATE EX REL. MCCARTHYvFITZGERALD.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 16, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

An act of the legislature assuming to establish a second election district in an organized town held to be unconstitutional, in the absense of any provisions of law under which an election can be held in said district.

Quo warranto.M. E. Clapp, Atty. Gen., Peck & Brown, and James McHale, for McCarthy, relator.

R. A. & F. C. Irwin, for Fitzgerald, respondent.

BERRY, J.

In 1868 the borough of Belle Plaine was carved out of the town of Belle Plaine, and for certain municipal purposes clothed with a distinct corporate existence; but for others, including the election of town officers, it remained part of the town. Sp. Laws 1868, c. 36, § 24. Bannon v. Bowler, 34 Minn. 416,26 N. W. Rep. 237. As a general rule, every organized town is one election district or precinct. Gen. St. 1878, c. 1, § 2.

Under the general statute, the only place for holding the annual town meeting for the town of Belle Plaine for 1887 was at the place where the last preceding annual meeting was held in the borough. In this state of facts, the legislature, on January 31, 1887, passed an act entitled “An act to detach certain territory from the borough of Belle Plaine, Scott county, and create therefrom a new election district;” and providing that all of certain described territory, (being that embraced in the entire town of Belle Plaine,) “except that part thereof now belonging to and being contained in the borough of Belle Plaine, shall be detached from said borough of Belle Plaine for election purposes, and constitute a separate election district or precinct.”

In our judgment, the intended effect of this legislation was to divide the town of Belle Plaine into two election districts or precincts; one consisting of the borough, the other of the rest of the town; the town, however, still continuing to be a unit or entirety. This is the only sensible meaning which we are able to attach to the language of the act, although we dare say it is not that which its framer had in mind.

But with this meaning the act is unconstitutional. The constitution (article 11, § 4) requires that “provision shall be made by law for the election of such county or township officers as may be necessary.” This requirement has been complied with by appropriate legislation. Article 7, § 1, of the constitution, further provides, in substance, that every qualified elector...