Case ID: minn_56/html/0099-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Collins, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ernst Albrecht et al. vs. City of St. Paul et al.
    
    Submitted on briefs Nov. 29, 1893.
    Affirmed Jan. 2, 1894.
    No. 8523.
    Insufficient assignment of errors.
    The assignments of error made by counsel for appellants in this case are insufficient to raise or present any question for determination.
    Appeal by plaintiffs, Ernst Albrecht and two hundred and fifteen others, from a judgment of the District Court of Bamsey County, Chas. E. Otis, J., entered October 19, 1892, that they take nothing by their action.
    This suit was commenced January 26, 1891, against the City of St. Paul and George Bies, City Treasurer, defendants, to restrain the levy and collection of an assessment upon the property of the plaintiffs for the construction of a bridge and approaches on Selby Avenue over the tracks and right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Bailway Company, costing $90,646.73. The plaiiftiffs claimed the bridge was in fact for the use and benefit of Selby Avenue Cable Line belonging to the St. Paul City Bailway Company, and was in no sense a local or public improvement, that the assessment was in several particulars illegal and they prayed judgment enjoining its collection. The defendants, by their answer denied various allegations of the complaint, and then set forth in detail all the steps in the proceeding to levy and collect the assessment, comprising more than ten folios of affirmative statements. The issues were tried February 10, 1892, and the Court made findings that all the affirmative allegations in the answer are true, and directed judgment that plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in the action and that they pay the costs. Judgment was so entered and plaintiffs appeal. Here they assign errors as follows:
    1st. The Court below erred in finding the affirmative allegations of the answer to be true.
    2nd. The Court below erred in finding as conclusion of law that plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief in this action.
    
      John W. White and F. W. Root, for appellants.
    
      Leon T. Chamberlain and H. W. Phillips, for respondents.
   Collins, J.

Plaintiffs’ first assignment of error is not only too general to indicate in what particular the finding of fact complained of is erroneous, but it covers many facts which were not only alleged in the complaint, but, after being set out with much detail in the answer, were expressly admitted in the reply. It does not reach that part of the findings of fact attacked in appellants’ brief whereby the court found that the allegations of the complaint respecting the real character and purpose of the improvements, and that they were actually made for a private, and not a public, use, were untrue. If the findings of fact remain intact, it follows that there is nothing in the second assignment of error as to the conclusions of law.

Judgment affirmed.

(Opinion published 57 N. "W. Rep. 330.)