State ex rel. Simpson v. Rapp
| Decision Date | 03 July 1888 |
| Citation | 38 N.W. 926,39 Minn. 65 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, ex rel. Andrew Simpson, v. Valentine Rapp and others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendants, supervisors of the towns of White Bear and Mounds View, in Ramsey county, from an order of the district court for that county, Brill, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
Order affirmed.
C. D. & Thos. D. O'Brien, for appellants.
H. J Horn and John D. O'Brien, for respondent.
In 1885 the relator and others petitioned the supervisors of these two towns to lay out a highway on the town line pursuant to Gen. St. 1878, c. 13, § 42. Upon the hearing the supervisors denied the prayer of the petition, and refused to lay out the road, from which determination the relator appealed, pursuant to the provisions of section 59 of the same chapter. The jury summoned by the justice of the peace reversed the decision of the supervisors, and ordered the road laid out. The supervisors still refusing to lay out the road, the relator obtained from the district court an alternative writ of mandamus against them, which upon the hearing, was made peremptory, commanding the supervisors to proceed and lay out the road. From the order denying a new trial the supervisors appeal. Only three points are made by the appellants:
1. The first is that the original petition for the road was insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the supervisors, for the reason that it did not properly describe the line of the proposed highway. The description is: "A new road four rods wide on the line between said two towns, [White Bear and Mounds View:] Beginning at a point where the section line between section eighteen, (18,) township thirty, (30,) of range twenty-two, (22,) in said town of White Bear, and section thirteen, (13,) in said town of Mounds View, in township thirty, (30,) of range twenty-three, (23,) intersects the White Bear, Minneapolis, and Mounds View road, so called, and running thence north on said line between said sections eighteen, (18,) and thirteen, (13,) to Pleasant lake." For the purposes of information to those residing in and familiar with the neighborhood, it would be difficult to suggest a better description than this. It is not pretended that the road and lake referred to do not exist, or that the points of beginning and termination of the proposed highway cannot be readily ascertained. The description is perfectly good.
2. The second point is that the statute providing for appeals in such cases to justices of the peace, or, more properly speaking, to a jury summoned by a justice, is unconstitutional. Gen. St. 1878, c. 13, §§ 59-61. We understand appellants' contention to be that it is in conflict with section 8, article 6, of the state constitution, relating to courts of justices of the peace which provides that "no justice of the peace shall have jurisdiction of any civil cause where the amount in controversy shall exceed $ 100, * * * nor in any cause involving the title to real estate." We think this contention is founded upon an entire misapprehension of the nature of these proceedings, and of the functions performed by the justice in such appeals. Condemnatory proceedings in the exercise of the right of eminent domain are not civil actions or causes within the meaning of the constitution, but special proceedings, only quasi judicial in their nature, whether conducted by...
To continue reading
Request your trial