State v. City of Crookston

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Citation: State v. City of Crookston, 91 N.W.2d 81, 252 Minn. 526 (Minn. 1958)
• Decision Date: 13 June 1958
• Docket Number: No. 37089,37089
• Parties: STATE ex rel. TOWN OF LOWELL, Relator, R. E. Knutson, Intervenor, v. CITY OF CROOKSTON, Respondent.

Page 81

91 N.W.2d 81

252 Minn. 526

STATE ex rel. TOWN OF LOWELL, Relator R. E. Knutson, Intervenor, v. CITY OF CROOKSTON, Respondent.

No. 37089.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 13, 1958.

Syllabus by the Court

Where, under the charter of the city of Crookston, every resolution to be effective must be approved by the mayor; where the city council of the city of Crookston adopted a resolution calling for an election on an annexation petition and the mayor failed to approve the resolution until after the election had been held; and where M.S.A. § 413.12 provides that 'the governing body' may call an election where an annexation petition has been filed, Held that the charter provision prevails and the annexation proceedings therefore are void.

Stiening, Olson & Thysell, Moorhead, for relator.

L. A. Erickson, Crookston, for respondent.

MAGNEY, Commissioner.

Upon the relation of the town of Lowell in Polk County, with the consent of the attorney general, this court issued a writ of quo warranto to test the validity of an annexation proceeding by the city of Crookston.

On April 24, 1956, a petition was presented to the council of the city of Crookston requesting the council to call an election on the question of annexing to the city of Crookston adjoining territory which was then a part of the town of Lowell. The area sought to be annexed contained a population of 281 persons. The city council adopted a resolution calling for an election to be held on May 8, 1956. The election resulted in 78 ballots cast in favor of annexation and 73 ballots cast against. The resolution calling for the election was not presented to the mayor of the city of Crookston until May 23, 1956. It was signed by him on that day. The Honorable Rol E. Barron, judge of the district court for the seventh judicial district, acting as referee appointed by this court to hear the matter, found that the annexation proceeding was null and void.

The statutory procedure for annexation in a situation such as we have here is set out in M.S.A. § 413.12. Relator admits that all the statutory requirements for a legal annexation existed or were complied with. It claims, however, that the failure of the city of Crookston to comply with the requirements of its own city charter in connection with the adoption of the resolution nullifies the proceedings. Section 413.12 provides:

'Subdivision 2. Five or more of the legal voters residing within such territory may petition The governing body of such city to call an election for the determination of such proposed annexation. The petitioners shall first cause to be taken a census of the resident population of the territory and, if found to be 75 or more, the petition shall be presented to The governing body within four weeks thereafter. * * * 'Subdivision 3. The governing body shall receive the petition and may in Its discretion cause a copy thereof, with a notice attached thereto fixing a time and place for holding an election, to be posted in three public places within such territory. * * *

'Subdivision 4. The governing body may appoint three inspectors, * * * who shall act as judges of the election * * *.' (Italics supplied.)

The city of Crookston operates under a home rule charter. Section 20 reads in part as follows:

'* * * All ordinances and resolutions shall, before they take effect, be presented by the city clerk within forty-eight hours after their passage to the mayor for his approval, and if he approves the same he shall endorse his approval upon and sign the same. * * * Any ordinance or resolution not returned by the mayor within five days after it shall have been presented to him, shall have the same effect as if approved by him; Provided, that no ordinance or resolution of the city council shall be approved or signed by the mayor within forty-eight hours after its passage.'

Section 45 provides in part:

'* * * Every resolution shall be approved by the mayor and recorded by the city clerk before it shall take effect.'

As has been stated, the resolution by the city council calling for the election was not presented to the mayor for his signature and it was not signed by him until after the annexation election had been held. The provisions of the charter of the city of Crookston were therefore in this respect not complied with, and the question presented to us concerns itself with the legal effect of such noncompliance. Relator contends that the pertinent charter provisions are mandatory and that they prevail over the general statutes relating to this matter, while respondent city's position is that the provision of the charter requiring the approval of the mayor on all resolutions is contrary to the annexation statute and therefore ineffective.

The general rule is that, in matters of municipal concern, home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the legislature of the state, save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld. The adoption of any charter provision contrary to the public policy of the state, as disclosed by general laws or its penal code, is also forbidden. The power conferred upon cities to frame and adopt home...