State ex rel. Hughes v. Dist. Court of Ramsey Cnty.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1905
• Citation: State ex rel. Hughes v. Dist. Court of Ramsey Cnty., 95 Minn. 70, 103 N.W. 744 (Minn. 1905)
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HUGHES v. DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

95 Minn. 70

103 N.W. 744

STATE ex rel. HUGHES

v.DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 2, 1905.

Certiorari by the state, on the relation of Katie L. Hughes, to the district court of Ramsey county and others.Judgment affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1.The judgment of the board of public works of St. Paul as to what property is benefited, and to what extent that benefit extends, because of the making of a local improvement authorized by the charter, is final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed by the courts unless it is shown to be fraudulent in fact, or to have been made upon demonstrable mistake of fact, or that in making it the board of public works applied an illegal principle or an erroneous rule of law.

2.No facts bring this case within any of these exceptions.

3.The fixing of the limits of the district to be taxed is not a judicial function, and the courts will not interfere with its determination by statutory authorities except to correct palpable violations of the Constitution or charter.

4.The spread of the assessment in this case was not so unreasonable or improper as to justify judicial interference.

5.A reassessment is not void because one notice was given and a meeting held to fix the assessment district, and afterwards a second notice was given, and a meeting held for placing the assessment upon the specific lands within this district.Walter L. Chapin, for petitioner.

J. C. Michael and Geo. R. O'Reilly, for respondents.

JAGGARD, J.

The board of public works of St. Paul reassessed a certain district for the paving of a portion of Payne avenue.The reassessment was confirmed.Application was made to the district court for judgment against the property on which the reassessment was not paid.The relators duly filed objections.The cause was tried in the district court.The city introduced the reassessment, warrant, and the various notices by the city treasurer preliminary thereto.The relators introduced evidence in support of each objection.Judgment was ordered for the city by the district court, and was duly entered.The relators secured a writ of certiorari from this court.

The first question presented by this case is whether the judgment of the board of public works for the city of St. Paul is conclusive, or whether evidence of facts and circumstances, including questions as to accrual of special benefit, is admissible as against the record of the board of public works, and whether, therefore, the final judgment on this question must be that of the court.It is settled beyond controversy that the judgment of the board of public works as to what property is benefited and to what extent that benefit extends because of the making of a local improvement authorized by the charter is final and conclusive, and cannot be reviewed by the courts unless it is shown to be fraudulent in fact, or to have been made upon demonstrable mistake of fact, or that in making it the board of public works applied an illegal principle or an erroneous rule of law.Rogers v. City of St. Paul, 22 Minn. 494;Carpenter v. St. Paul, 23 Minn. 232;State v. Board of Public Works of St. Paul, 27 Minn. 442, 8 N. W. 161;State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 29 Minn. 65,11 N. W. 133;State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 33 Minn. 164, 22 N. W. 295;State ex rel. Wheeler v. District Court of Ramsey County, 80 Minn. 293, 83 N. W. 183.There is nothing in the record in this case to bring it within any of these exceptions nor has any sufficient reason been assigned for reversing this long...