State v. Lindquist
| Decision Date | 20 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 26012.,26012. |
| Citation | 171 Minn. 334,214 N.W. 260 |
| Parties | STATE v. LINDQUIST. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Municipal Court of Minneapolis; C. L. Smith, Judge.
Carl Lindquist was convicted of doing stucco work without a permit, contrary to a city ordinance, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Robertson & Bonner, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., Neil M. Cronin, City Atty., and Palmer B. Rasmusson, Asst. City Atty., both of Minneapolis, for the State.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, rendered upon the conviction of the defendant of a violation of an ordinance regulating the construction of buildings. Section 206 of the ordinance reads in part as follows:
The complaint charged defendant with doing the outside stucco work on a dwelling house in Minneapolis without a permit. At the trial, the defendant offered to show that before he commenced to do the work he applied for a permit and was denied one on the ground that he had failed to obtain the license from the city council which is required by the ordinance. Objection to the offer was sustained.
The appeal presents two questions: (1) Is the ordinance valid? (2) Did the court err in excluding the offered evidence?
1. The ordinance is assailed on the ground that power involving the exercise of judgment and discretion is delegated to the inspector of buildings. If this be true, the ordinance cannot be upheld. Darling v. City of St. Paul, 19 Minn. 389 (Gil. 336); In re Wilson, 32 Minn. 145, 19 N. W. 723; Mpls. Gas Light Co. v. City of Mpls. 36 Minn. 159, 30 N. W. 450; State v. Redington, 119 Minn. 402, 138 N. W. 430.
It is conceded that the Minneapolis home rule charter confers power upon the city council to regulate the construction of buildings, and it is not contended that the inspector of buildings has no authority to enter upon and examine all buildings in process of construction and to direct the suspension of building operations which do not conform to the regulations established by the city council.
By the terms of the ordinance, before any person may lawfully engage in the business of plastering or doing outside stucco work, he must obtain a license from the city council and, before doing a particular piece of work, he must get a permit from the inspector of buildings.
Attention is called to a provision of the ordinance establishing a building code for the city of Minneapolis referring to permits. Applications therefor must be made on blank forms furnished by the inspector of buildings, and must state the location, nature, extent, and cost of the proposed work. When such application is filed and the required fee is paid, the inspector must issue the permit. Everything the applicant must do to obtain a permit is specified in the ordinance. The duties of the inspector, in passing on the application, are fixed and certain. He has no discretion in the exercise whereof he may refuse to issue a permit if the application is made in conformity to the requirements of the ordinance.
As a general rule, a municipal corporation may authorize an officer to exercise functions which are purely ministerial. State v. Municipal Court of Mpls., 166 Minn. 440, 208 N. W. 642; McQuillan, Mun. Corp. § 387. As was said in Jewell Belting Co. v. Village of Bertha, 91 Minn. 9, 97 N. W. 424:
"Ministerial functions are those that are absolute, fixed, and certain, in the performance of which the * * * officer exercises...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Independent School Dist. No. 21 v. Integrity Mut. Cas. Co.
... ... This provision was considered in State v. Stratte, 83 Minn. 194, 86 N. W. 20, and State v. Schram, 82 Minn. 420, 85 N. W. 155, but neither case touches the precise point under ... ...
- Security State Bank v. Nelson, 26009.