State Ex rel. Simpson v. County of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 26 January 1912
• Docket Number: 17,454 - (232)
• Citation: State Ex rel. Simpson v. County of St. Louis, 117 Minn. 42, 134 N. W. 299 (Minn. 1912)
• Parties: STATE ex rel. GEORGE T. SIMPSON v. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

134 N.W. 299

117 Minn. 42

STATE ex rel. GEORGE T. SIMPSON v. COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS

Nos. 17,454 - (232)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 26, 1912

On information of the attorney general, in behalf of the state this court issued its writ of quo warranto directing the county of St. Louis to appear and show by what warrant it assumed to exercise jurisdiction over the territory lying east of the boundary between the counties of St. Louis and Lake, as fixed by the act of 1895 (c. 248). The respondent's answer, among other matters, alleged that the mouth of Knife river, where it empties into Lake Superior, at the time of the creation of St. Louis county was, and at the present time is, located at a point approximately one mile easterly from the dividing line between ranges 11 and 12 west, and that the act in question was unconstitutional and void, being in conflict with Const art. 4, § 33, as amended in 1892. The reply denied that the mouth of the Knife river was as alleged and averred it was approximately three quarters of a mile east of the dividing line between the ranges mentioned. Ordered that a writ of ouster issue.

SYLLABUS

Act constitutional.

Chapter 248 of Laws of 1895 is not in contravention of section 33, art. 4, of the Constitution.

Boundary of county.

Held, that acquiescence by the state and the counties of St. Louis and Lake in the boundary line between said counties, as located and fixed by said act, for fifteen years, precludes inquiry into the correctness of such location.

George T. Simpson, Attorney General, and B. F. Fowler, County Attorney, for relator.

Charles E. Adams, for respondent.

OPINION

HOLT, J.

Upon the information filed in this court by the attorney general of the state in its behalf, a writ was issued directing the respondent, the county of St. Louis, to show by what warrant it exercised jurisdiction and control of a part of the territory belonging to Lake county. The respondent has answered, and the relator replied. Upon the admission contained in the pleadings, each party claims a decision in its favor.

The admitted facts are these: The counties of Lake and St. Louis have for more than fifty years last past been political corporate subdivisions of the state, being established under and by virtue of the provisions of chapter 35 of the General Laws of the Territory of Minnesota for 1856 [p. 63], wherein the westerly boundary line of Lake county is described thus: "That so much of Minnesota territory as lies east of a line commencing at the mouth of Knife river on the north shore of Lake Superior, and running due north to the boundary line between the United States and the British possessions, shall be and is hereby erected into a separate county, which shall be known by the name of Lake." The east boundary of St. Louis county is in the same act made coincident with the west boundary line of Lake county. From the time of the organization and up to 1895, St. Louis county assumed jurisdiction of a strip of territory lying between the line dividing range 12 west and range 11 west and a line drawn parallel and one mile to the east thereof. The respondent asserts that the mouth of the Knife river is approximately one mile east of the line dividing said ranges 11 and 12, while the relator claims the distance to be no more than three-fourths of a mile. The legislature, by chapter 248 of the General Laws of 1895, [p. 622] entitled "An act to define the boundary between the counties of St. Louis and Lake," defined the boundary line between these counties to be coincident with the line known as the true meridian; the same being the line dividing range 11 west from range 12 west.

Respondent admits that at all times subsequent to the passage of this act, and up to December, 1910, the county of Lake has actually had complete control of and exercised jurisdiction in every way over all the territory lying east of the easterly boundary line of said range 12, and that the exercise of such jurisdiction and control of said territory, and the whole thereof, by said Lake county, ever since the month of April, 1895, has been recognized and acquiesced in by the state of Minnesota. It further admits that the exercise of such jurisdiction and control over the said territory by said Lake county, and the right so to do, has been recognized and acquiesced in by the county of St. Louis, and the said line between the said ranges 11 and 12 has been recognized and acquiesced in by the last-named county as the true boundary line between said counties ever since 1895, and until December, 1910.

The respondent further admits that since the last-named date it has been and is now claiming that said range line between ranges 11 and 12 is not the true boundary line between it and Lake county, and asserts that since December, 1910, it has been exercising jurisdiction and control over a strip of land about one mile in width off of and along the west side of said range 11 west, extending from the south boundary line of township 62 north to the north boundary line of township 64 north, containing in the aggregate eleven thousand acres of land, and that it will continue to attempt to exercise such jurisdiction over the same; that being the same territory described in the information as part of the territory of Lake county.

In this proceeding the respondent contends that the act of the territorial legislature of 1856 fixed the boundary line between the counties of St. Louis and Lake as the line due north from the mouth of Knife river, and that after the adoption of the constitutional amendment the legislature had no power by special act to change the boundary line of counties. Hence chapter 248 of the Laws of 1895, which, it is claimed, attempted to change the boundary between these counties, comes within the constitutional inhibition, and is of no effect. Respondent also asserts that the only other ground on which the right of Lake county to the territory in question could be based is untenable, namely, that the exercise of de facto jurisdiction for fifteen years, with the knowledge and acquiescence of the state and St. Louis county, will preclude the rights of Lake county to the territory from being questioned.

The principle is too well established to need citation of authorities that courts must assume that legislative enactments are valid until it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that they unavoidably contravene some provision of the Constitution. Section 33 of article 4 of the Constitution forbids the legislature to change county lines by special act. Does chapter 248 of the Laws of 1895 change, or purport to change, this county line? The act does not purport so to do, and it does not seem necessary to hold that such is in fact the effect thereof. It reads:

"An act to define the boundary between the counties of St. Louis and Lake.

"Whereas, it is represented to the legislature that the boundary between the counties of St. Louis and Lake has no permanent location and that great inconvenience has resulted and is likely to result because of the indefiniteness thereof; therefore

"Be it enacted by the Legislature...