State ex rel. Quinn v. Village Council of Village of Cloquet
| Decision Date | 16 December 1892 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota ex rel. Albert E. Quinn v. Village Council of Village of Cloquet et al |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Submitted on briefs December 7, 1892
Appeal by defendant, The Village Council of the Village of Cloquet and George Muggah, Recorder of the Village, from a judgment of the District Court of Carlton County, Ensign, J., entered August 26, 1892, directing a peremptory writ of Mandamus to be issued, commanding the defendants to comply with the provisions of Sp. Laws 1891, ch. 265.
This Act required the Village Council of Cloquet to publish, or cause to be published, for one week in some weekly newspaper of general circulation in the village, their proceedings at each general or special session. Albert E. Quinn, on October 24, 1891, filed his information in the District Court of Carlton county, stating that he resided in said village and published a weekly newspaper there, called "The Pine Knot." That the Council had held meetings and the Recorder had kept minutes of their proceedings, but had failed to have them published, and that the Council had refused to have them published. He prayed that an alternative writ of Mandamus issue, commanding the Council and Recorder to publish these proceedings from time to time, or show cause to the contrary at a time and place to be fixed by that court.
The writ was issued, commanding the respondents to show cause at the Judge's Chambers in Duluth on October 31, 1891, at ten o'clock in the forenoon. They demurred on the ground that the information and writ did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled and judgment entered, that a peremptory writ issue. Respondents appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Cash & Williams, for appellants.
Appellants contend that the information fails to state a cause of action, for the reason that Sp. Laws 1891, ch. 265, is in contravention of the constitution of this state. Art. 4 § 33, 7th, 9th. Green v. Knife Falls Boom Corp., 35 Minn. 155; State of Ohio v Cincinnati, 20 Ohio St. 18; Atkinson v. Marietta & C. R. Co., 15 Ohio St. 21; San Francisco v. Spring Valley Water Works, 48 Cal. 493; Spring Valley Water Works v. Bryant, 52 Cal. 132; Attorney Gen'l v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., 35 Wis. 425; Kimball v. Town of Rosendale, 42 Wis. 407; Stephens Point Boom Co. v. Reilly, 44 Wis. 295.
H. Oldenburg, for respondent.
Respondents contended that a practical construction of these constitutional provisions has been adopted supporting the constitutionality of similar laws, citing over three hundred special laws of a like character enacted since 1881. To declare the law in question unconstitutional, would be to promote almost endless litigation, and cast doubt upon all the rights supposed to be secured by these hundreds of special acts.
The act in...
To continue reading
Request your trial