Town of Akron v. McElligott
| Citation | 147 N.W. 773,166 Iowa 297 |
| Decision Date | 19 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | 29440 |
| Parties | TOWN OF AKRON, IOWA, Appellant, v. J. E. McELLIGOTT, Appellee |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Plymouth District Court.--HON. W. D. BOISE, Judge.
THIS is a prosecution of the defendant for an alleged violation of a city ordinance of the plaintiff town. Upon trial before the mayor he was convicted. Upon appeal to the district court he was discharged upon the ground of the invalidity of the ordinance. The plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
T. M Zink, for appellant.
McDuffie & Keenan, for appellee.
Information was filed against the defendant before the mayor of the town. Such information sufficiently indicates the general nature of the prosecution and is as follows:
The defendant, J. E. McElligott, is accused of the crime of doing and performing an act prohibited by the ordinances of the town of Akron, Iowa for that the said defendant, J. E McElligott, on the 26th day of September, in 1912, at the town of Akron aforesaid, did engage in the business of wiring for electricity a certain house in the said town of Akron, to wit, the residence of one B. F. Wintersteen, and did wire said house for electricity, and did request the superintendent of public works in and for said town of Akron to inspect and pass upon the said wiring for the purpose of supplying said residence with electricity from the city plant, without first obtaining a license to do such wiring as required by part 16 of section 2 of Ordinance No. 68 of the town of Akron, and procuring and filing the bond required therein, contrary to the provisions of the ordinance in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the town of Akron.
Such information was subsequently amended. For the purpose of our discussion, we need not set forth such amendment. The plaintiff was the owner of its own electric light plant. For the purpose of the administration of such plant and the use of its product, it adopted certain rules and regulations in relation thereto. These were 18 in number, and were included, duly numbered, in section 2 of Ordinance No. 68. The particular parts of this ordinance which are alleged to have been violated by the defendant are rules 15 and 16, which are as follows:
Part 15--Any electric wire man wishing to do business in connection with the electric works shall before receiving license, file in the office of the town clerk a petition in writing, giving his name and that of each member of the firm, if any, and place of business, asking to become a licensed electric wire man of the said town of Akron, Iowa stating his willingness to be governed in all respects by the rules and regulations of the electric light department now or hereinafter adopted concerning his business; said petition shall be signed by two responsible citizens of the said town vouching for the business capacity and good reputation of the applicant and for his worthiness to receive a license, which application shall be presented to the council at their first regular meeting thereafter, and if approved by the council, the mayor shall issue a license to the applicant to do business as an electric wire man in the said town of Akron, Iowa. Before receiving the license the applicant shall file in the office of the town clerk a bond with two sureties, to be approved by the town council, in the sum of one thousand dollars ($ 1,000.00), conditioned that he will indemnify and keep harmless the said town of Akron, Iowa and the superintendent of public works from all liability for any accident and damages arising from any negligence or unskillfulness in doing or protecting his work or from any unfaithful or inadequate work done in pursuance of this license, and that he will pay all fines that may be imposed on him for violation of any rules or regulations adopted by said town or superintendent of public works, and in force during the time of his license. The license so issued shall be in full force and effect for a period of one year from the date of issuance thereof, unless the same be sooner revoked for cause shown.
Part 16--Any electric wire man who shall be guilty of a violation of any of the rules and regulations by the said town, or the superintendent of public works, or whose bond shall not be maintained to the satisfaction of the said town council shall forfeit his license. A forfeiture of the license of any electric wire man shall operate as a suspension of the license held by any and all copartners in the same business, or of any person in his or their employ.
The case was tried upon a stipulation of facts. This included a stipulation that the defendant "was a competent electrician, and possessed the necessary knowledge and training to perform the work which he performed," and that as such he wired two residences in the town of Akron, and that he did so without complying with the requirements of rules 15 and 16, above set forth. No question is raised but that his work was in fact properly performed, and that it complied with every requirement of the ordinance. No claim is made that any part of his work was disapproved by the inspector, nor that it could have been properly disapproved by such inspector in any other respect than that it had been done by the defendant without first complying with the requirements of sections 15 and 16. The contention of the defendant in brief is that the requirements of rules 15 and 16 transcend the authority of the municipal corporation, and that such requirements are therefore null and void. This contention was sustained by the trial court.
It is well settled that the power of a municipal corporation is only such as is conferred upon it by the statutes, and that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial