State ex rel. Stateler v. Reis
| Decision Date | 01 May 1888 |
| Citation | 38 N.W. 97,38 Minn. 371 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota ex rel. Thomas K. Stateler v. George Reis and another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The relator, having received a deed of a lot on Isabel street in St. Paul, tendered it to George Reis, the city treasurer with the request that he indorse on it his official certificate that all assessments on the lot for local improvements had been paid, such certificate being requisite to entitle the deed to record, and the charter requiring the treasurer to indorse it on the deed in case there were at the time no such assessments unpaid. The treasurer refused to make the certificate, because of an unpaid assessment for sprinkling Isabel street, on which the lot was situated. Thereupon the relator procured an alternative writ of mandamus to be allowed and to be issued from the district court for Ramsey county to compel the indorsement to be made. The writ was directed to the city as well as to its treasurer, and, answer having been made, the relator moved before Brill, J., for a peremptory writ. The motion was granted, and the city and the treasurer appealed.
Order reversed.
W. P Murray, for appellants.
S. L Pierce, for respondent.
The principal question in this case is whether sprinkling a street is a "local improvement," within the meaning of section 1, art. 9, of the constitution, for which an assessment may be levied upon the property fronting upon the street without regard to its cash valuation. If it be an "improvement" at all, it cannot be, and indeed is not, controverted but that it is "local," -- that is, that it is of exceptive and special benefit to the property fronting on the street. While the public who travel it are also benefited by having the street sprinkled, yet it requires no argument to show that those who reside or do business on it receive an exceptional and special benefit from abating the nuisance of dust, which is a source not only of discomfort to them, but also of actual pecuniary injury to their household goods or merchandise. Sprinkling a street renders the property fronting on it more desirable, and hence more valuable, for occupancy, -- a benefit not shared in by other property.
The relator's main contention, however, is that street sprinkling is not an "improvement," within the meaning of this section of the constitution, because it lacks the element of permanence; that its results are transient; that, to constitute an improvement, there must be some work or structure, such as a pavement, sidewalk, or the like, that will remain after the labor is performed, and permanently enhance the value of the property. But, if permanence or durability is to be the test, how long must the beneficial results last in order to constitute an improvement? It certainly will not be claimed that the work must be eternal in duration, or imperishable in character. We are unable to see any difference in principle between the work of street sprinkling, the results of which, unless repeated, last but a day, and the construction of a block pavement or wooden sidewalk, which wears out or decays, and has to be rebuilt, every few years. When a pavement or sidewalk has worn out, the future value of the property is not enhanced by it, any more than it is by street sprinkling when that ceases. Neither do we see that it makes any difference whether the substance applied to the surface of the street is wood, which has to be renewed every few years, or water, which has to be applied daily. Each benefits the adjacent property as long as it lasts, and no longer. It is not the agency used, or its comparative durability, but the result accomplished, which must determine whether a work is an improvement in the sense in which that word is here used. The only essential elements of a "local improvement" are those which the term itself implies, viz., that it shall benefit the property on which the cost is assessed in a manner local in its nature, and not enjoyed by property generally in the city. If it does this, -- rendering the property more attractive and comfortable, and hence more valuable for use, -- then it is an improvement. That the regular and systematic sprinkling of a street has this effect upon the property fronting on it is a matter of common knowledge. This construction is fully warranted by the definitions of the word "improvement" given by lexicographers. It has been defined as "that by which the value of anything is increased, its excellence enhanced, or the like;" or "an amelioration of the condition of property affected by the expenditure of labor or money, for the purpose of rendering it useful for other purposes than those for which it was originally used, or more useful for the same purposes."
Of course, the word is to be construed according to the subject-matter. In a lease or deed, or in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial