State ex rel. Olson v. Bd. of Com'rs of Renville Cnty.

Decision Date26 April 1901
Citation85 N.W. 830,83 Minn. 65
PartiesSTATE ex rel. OLSON et al. v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF RENVILLE COUNTY et al.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from district court; Renville county; Gorham Powers, Judge.

Application by the state, on the relation of Thomas Olson and others, for writ of mandamus against the board of commissioners of Renville county, and others. From an order refusing to quash the writ, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Chapter 271, Laws 1889, entitled ‘An act to appropriate money to aid in building bridges and draining lands in certain counties of the state,’ appropriated money for the building of a bridge across the river between the defendant counties, and provided that such bridge when built should be kept in good condition by the counties. The bridge was built pursuant to the statute, but by reason of wear and decay has been destroyed. Held:

1. The subject of the act is expressed in its title, and it is constitutional.

2. The duty of rebuilding the bridge when destroyed was imposed by the act upon the counties.

3. The petition in this case states facts authorizing the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the county commissioners of the respective counties to proceed and rebuild the bridge. A. V. Reike and Frank Clague, for appellants.

Eric L. Winje, for respondents.

START, C. J.

This is an appeal by the board of county commissioners of the counties of Renville and Redwood, respectively, from the orders of the district court of the county of Renville refusing to quash an alternative writ of mandamus, and granting a peremptory one, requiring them to rebuild the bridge therein designated across the Minnesota river between the two counties. The sole question here to be decided is whether the facts alleged in the petition for the writ authorize the issuance of the writ. Such facts, so far as here material, are these: The legislature of this state, in the year 1889, by an act entitled ‘An act to appropriate money to aid in building bridges and draining lands in certain counties of the state (Laws 1889, c. 271, tit. a 11), appropriated $1,000 for the purpose of building a bridge across the Minnesota river in the counties of Renville and Redwood, to be located and constructed under the supervision and direction of the commissioners named in the act. This statute also provided that ‘the said bridge, after its completion, shall be kept in good condition by the counties in which the same shall be situated, and shall remain a free bridge forever.’ Section 6, Id. Pursuant to the statute, the bridge was located at a point where there was and is a public road across the river, and built under the direction of such commissioners, and completed, ready for public travel, July, 1890. The bridge was thereafter continuously used by the public as a public highway until August, 1898, when, by reason of wear and decay, it collapsed, and was utterly destroyed. The maintenance of this bridge is necessary for public travel and convenience. All of the relators live near the road that leads across the river at the point where the bridge was located, and are greatly inconvenienced by the lack of the bridge at such place. They are also freehold residents, legal voters, and taxpayers of the county of Renville. The board of county commissioners of each of the counties has neglected to rebuild the bridge, and has and still refuses so to do, or to take any steps towards the rebuilding thereof, although there is now and has been since the bridge was destroyed sufficient money belonging to the road and bridge fund in the treasury of each of the counties unappropriated and available for the rebuilding of such bridge.

1. The appellants' first contention is that so much of the statute providing for the building of the bridge as imposes upon the counties the duty and liability of keeping the bridge in good repair is unconstitutional, because not expressed in the title of the act. The mandate of the constitution (section 27, art. 4), that ‘no law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in its title,’ has been often considered by this court, and it has been uniformly held that the title of a statute is sufficient if it is not used as a cloak for legislating upon dissimilar matters in the same act, and the subjects embodied in the enacting clause are naturally connected with, and are germane to, the general subject expressed in its title; otherwise, not. Winters v. City of Duluth (Minn.) 84 N. W. 788. There is sometimes difficulty in determining whether the several...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT