Wallenberg v. City of Minneapolis
| Decision Date | 07 October 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,569 - (176) [2] |
| Parties | GUST A. WALLENBERG v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Original Opinion Filed July 22, 1910
City council of Minneapolis -- street grade.
The city council of Minneapolis has, under the charter of that city, the authority to establish street grades, but in making the improvement cannot take, destroy, or damage private property without compensation.
Acts of city.
The grading of a street by the street commissioner under the direction of the engineering department, pursuant to a resolution of the city council ordering the construction of sidewalks upon a grade to be "given by the city engineer" and paid for with municipal funds, is the act of the municipality.
Acts of city -- public officer not trespasser.
The public officers who perform the physical acts required to make a public improvement, which, though irregularly made, is performed pursuant to the direction of the municipality, and is one which it is within the authority of the municipality to order, are not trespassers or personal wrongdoers.
On October 7, 1910, the following opinion was filed:
On Reargument
The statement of facts in the original opinion was not accurate, for which reason and because of the importance of the case a reargument was granted.
It appears that the sidewalk ordered by the resolution of August 16, 1907, did not extend directly in front of plaintiff's property or approach that property nearer than one hundred feet. A second resolution, approved August 20, 1908, did extend the stone walk across the front of plaintiff's property, but in the meantime the grading complained of had been performed. The assessment referred to in the original opinion did not include the cost of the grading, which was paid for out of the ward fund, but was only to meet the expense of the sidewalk. Respondent also contends that the payments from the ward fund to the persons who actually did the work of grading were made without any knowledge upon the part of the city officers that such payments included pay for time spent upon this work of grading.
1. We do not think any of these matters material. We still think that the whole course of this proceeding shows a municipal improvement, made by a municipality in an irregular manner, but for which the municipality must accept the responsibility.
2. Counsel for the city insist with great vigor that in our former decision we erred with regard to the effect to be given plaintiff's petition or request that the street be graded. A careful...
To continue reading
Request your trial