State ex rel. Jonason v. Crosby

• Decision Date: 13 May 1904
• Docket Number: Nos. 13,865 - (14).,s. 13,865 - (14).
• Citation: 92 Minn. 176
• Parties: STATE ex rel. P. S. JONASON v. F. M. CROSBY and Another.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

92 Minn. 176

STATE ex rel. P. S. JONASON v. F. M. CROSBY and Another.¹

Nos. 13,865 - (14).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 13, 1904.

Order issued by the supreme court upon relation of P. S. Jonason, requiring respondents, as judge and clerk respectively of the district court for Chisago county, to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue restraining them from further proceeding in the matter of establishing a drainage ditch. Order discharged.

P. H. Stolberg, for relator.

P. M. Qvist, for respondents.

BROWN, J.

Proceedings were duly commenced in the district court of Chisago county under the provisions of chapter 258, p. 413, Laws 1901, as amended by chapter 38, p. 901, Laws 1902, for the purpose of establishing a ditch extending from said county into Washington county. After certain steps had been taken therein, relator obtained from this court an order to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue to the court below, requiring it to desist and refrain from further steps therein.

Two questions respecting the constitutionality of the act of the legislature under which the proceedings are being conducted are presented for our consideration. Alleged irregularities and defects in the proceedings in the court below urged by counsel for relator cannot be considered. To warrant a court in granting the extraordinary remedy of prohibition, it must clearly appear that the inferior court or tribunal to which it is directed is proceeding in some matter over which it possesses no rightful jurisdiction, or is exceeding its legitimate powers in a matter over which it has jurisdiction. It is a preventive, not a corrective, remedy. The only question reached by the writ, therefore, is whether the inferior court or tribunal is wholly without jurisdiction, or is exceeding its legitimate power and authority. If it have no jurisdiction of the subject-matter, prohibition is a proper remedy; but if it have jurisdiction of the particular matter, and there is no claim that it is exceeding its authority in the premises, the writ will not issue however defective its proceedings may be. All irregularities and defects must be reviewed in some other proceeding. So in the case at bar the constitutionality of the statute under which the court below is acting is the only question we are called upon to consider. Whether there were fatal irregularities in the steps taken, such as a failure to give the notices required by statute, is not a question that can be reviewed in this manner. So we pass the contentions of relator respecting some alleged defects in the proceedings without further remark.

It is contended (1) that the statute referred to, and under which the court below is acting (Laws 1902, p. 90, c. 38), is unconstitutional, for the reason that the title thereto is not sufficiently definite and specific, and (2) that the act is unconstitutional because an attempt is thereby made to confer upon the courts legislative and administrative powers.

Taking these two contentions in the order stated, we consider first the sufficiency of the title of the act of 1902. The title is as follows:

An act to amend chapter 258 of the General Laws of 1901, entitled "An act providing for the drainage of lands, in certain cases, prescribing the powers and duties of county commissioners and other officers in the premises, and appropriating funds for the payment of assessments against state lands affected thereby, and prescribing penalties for the violation thereof, and repealing certain acts therein mentioned and referred to."

It will be observed that this title, so far as expressing the subject-matter of the act, is identical with that of the original act (Laws 1901, p. 413, c. 258), which it amends. Following the title of the amendatory act are several sections changing and modifying in some respects the original statute, and then follows section 21 (Laws 1902, p. 104, c. 38), which provides

That said chapter two hundred fifty-eight (258) is hereby further amended by adding after section thirty four (34) thereof the following sections.

Then follow sections 35-41, inclusive. The original statute conferred the power and authority to establish and provide for the construction of ditches and drains upon the county commissioners of the several counties of the state; and the purpose of the act of 1902, in addition to the numerous amendments made thereby, was to extend the same authority and power to the district courts where the proposed ditch or drain extended into two or more counties, and this authority is the subject-matter of the sections added to the statute by the act of 1902. The title to the act...