Townsend v. Underwood's Second Addition to City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 08 January 1904
• Docket Number: 13,694 - (170)
• Citation: 97 N.W. 977,91 Minn. 242
• Parties: MARY L. TOWNSEND and Another v. UNDERWOOD'S SECOND ADDITION TO CITY OF ST. PAUL
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

97 N.W. 977

91 Minn. 242

MARY L. TOWNSEND and Another v. UNDERWOOD'S SECOND ADDITION TO CITY OF ST. PAUL

Nos. 13,694 - (170)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

January 8, 1904

Application in the district court for Ramsey county by Mary L. Townsend and another for the vacation of the plat of Underwood's Second Addition to the city of St. Paul. The matter was heard before Kelly, J., who found as a conclusion of law, that the court was without jurisdiction to grant relief. From a judgment entered pursuant to the findings petitioners appealed. Reversed and remanded.

SYLLABUS

Vacating Plat.

The district court of Ramsey county has power and authority, under G.S. 1894, § 2315, to alter or vacate any part of the plat of the city of St. Paul or of its additions, including streets and public squares, and to adjudge and declare the title to such streets and public squares in the parties entitled thereto, notwithstanding a charter provision whereby sole and exclusive power to vacate or discontinue public grounds, streets, highways, and alleys in that city is vested in the common council.

Charles J. Berryhill, for appellants.

OPINION

COLLINS, J.

Upon petition in due form presented to the district court, it refused to vacate the town plat mentioned therein upon the ground that it was without jurisdiction to grant any relief in the matter. It held that the city council of the city of St. Paul, wherein the land was situated, had sole and exclusive jurisdiction and authority in the premises by reason of section 15, p. 14 (c. 4) of the city charter, which reads as follows:

"The common council of said city shall have the sole and exclusive power to vacate or discontinue public grounds, streets, alleys and highways within said city."

It is conceded that a right to adopt this provision in the home-rule charter was within the power granted to the people of the city when there was conferred upon them the right to frame and adopt such an instrument, because the power and authority to frame a charter extended, of necessity, to all powers belonging to the government of municipalities. State ex rel. v. O'Connor, 81 Minn. 79, 83 N.W 498. But the power and authority to vacate and discontinue public grounds, streets, alleys, and highways in a municipality is altogether different from the power and authority which for many years has been vested in the district court under G.S. 1894, § 2315. By this statute district courts...