Little Falls transcript. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1876-1894, 1880-07-23

cision JUST. rendered by the supreme
| court, confirming the title Of DeGraf g
Co. to the $4,000 acres of their lands in
Morrison and adjoining counties, that
have a. heretofore been under dispute.
Herewith we give IN full the ss.:g ..a....s !;
2i5a&OPINIoN OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Western railroad company Of Minneso-
ia, appellant VS.. Charles A.. DeGraf and
William Crooks, surviving partners Of the
/ late firm of .DeGraff d 2 Co... Charles A. F.
Morris, Nathan Myrick and Russell Blakeley
and Cepheus W. Carpenter, comprising the
firm of Blakeley ! Carpenter, and John s.
,Pillsbury, governor of the State Of Minneso-
ca, respondents. st2zs @ ,: :'....s* L, ..,,y>
| .S3RH3 ;"G 1t.la OPINION ,:sz.as % - /
Whether under our constitution any officer
| ofthe executive department of the State gov
ernment can be subject to judicial control and
interference in the performance Of an official
| duty isa question which has been before this
court5in different forms and at different times
Reconsideration and decision, and the hold I
ing has uniformly been against. the existence
Of any such jurisd diction or power in The
courts str T. .-t v-.:.{-} ~..E !:g
In re. the application of the senate, etc., 10
Minn.,7S. 81 80 -..:tg .<'s#~@
Rice ct al. vs.. Austin, 10 Mimi, 104. so
The State ex rel. county treasurer of Mile
Lies county VS.. Dixie, State treasurer, and
same ex rel, Wright vs.. ,Jennison, secretary of
State, 20 Mimi, $685. .',.: ,s-. ~ ::
f St. p. l. c. r. Co. vs.: Brown ct al, "a
| Mimi, 5l7, 573 and 574.-
| The reasons for the holding are fully stated
in Rice VS. Austin and county treasurer of
Mile Lacs county vs.. Dixie, supra, and need
bot be restated here. It rests upon the con-
stitutional principles that each of these de-
| partments of government is entirely independ-
ent of the others, so that neither can be made
amenable to any other for its action or judg-
| it, whatever their sources or nature. j. -,.~s'
The principle applies to the performance
of all official duties, whether imposed by the
constitution or by legislative enactment sim
ply, or whether they are of character strictly
ministerial, or such az call for the exercise OF
discretion and Judgment alone.
1t follows that every .act done or attempted
| to be done by any officer Of the executive de-
partment in his official, and not in his indi-
vidual capacity, is shielded from all judicial
| interference and control, either by mandamus
| or injunction, even though such act may be
founded in an error of judgment, or an entire
misapprehension of official duty under the
| law.
The acts complained Of and sought to be
| enjoined in this action are clearly acts which
the defendant, Pillsbury, is threatening to do
in his official capacity as the governor of the
State, and not as an individual. The court
therefore, as against him, can take no cosniz-
ance of this action, nor grant the preventia
relief prayed for by The plaintiff.
| If the action is dismissed, as it must be a;
against this defendant, for want of any juris
diction over the governor, whether it car
still be maintained against the other defend
ants, whe are the respondents herein, is tht
only question remaining for consideration anc
decision. To sustain it against them alone
it must appear that they have such an interes
in the action as makes them liable to tn,
plaintiff in respect to the demand which con
:stitutea The groundwork of the complain t
Story Egg. Pledgs, sections 503, 5l3, 500, 70.
and 4.
No cause of action is stated against the re-
spondents alone. For its foundation the &C
ton rests wholly upon the theory that unde
a contract between the corporation plaintiff
and the State certain lands, acquired by tn
latter under congressional grant in aid O.
the construction Of line of railroad from
Brainerd to Watab, equitabIy belong to th'
plaintiff upon the payment of certain claims
held by the respondents and others for partly
building that line Of road, and that the gov
ernor, acting in his official capacity for and il
behalf of the State, is wrongfuily and unlaw
fully about to sell such lands in parcels, ant
to pass the legal title thereto, which is nov
vested in the State, to such parties as may be
come the purchasers at public sale. Such dis
anu VI tltlc, IL ID hlicScu1 VIII
greatly prejudice the equitable right of tn
plaintiff to the lands, involve it in multi
plicity of suits and cause irreparable loss ant
injury. Against this apprehended wrong thi
action is mainly directed. and the only caus
of action stated in the alleged wrongful act o
the governor by which it is threatened to b
accomplished. With this act respondents ar
in no way conn ected by any allegations in tn
complaint. Iii not pretended that they have
or claim to have any title to, estate in or pos
session of the lands, that the governor is act
ing in the matter under any authority de
rived from them, or that he is in any way un
der their control
They are powerless to compel or to preven
him from doing the acts complained OF, whic]
it alleged he is about to do. & They are
therefore, under no legal duty or liability t.
the plaintiff in respect thereto, and no actio'
can be sustained against them on account o
the same, or to enjoin their commission. LTh
accounting asked for by appellant in respec
to that portion of the claims, held by respond
ents, which have been incurred in the con
struction of the Brainerd l. Watab line 0
road, is sought solely in aid Of the preventiv
relief of q perpetual INDUCTION against stb
threatened sale and conveyance of the land
Its object is to ascertain and determine by
judicial decision the amount Of that portion o
such claims, to the end that the appeian b
+ paying the same or depositing the amour
thereof in court for that purpose, may becom
equitably entitled to conveyance of the lega
title from the State, and to q decree restraining
the sale and transfer Of the title to othe
parties, and this is the. only ground upo
which the right to an accounting is based. I
5 such preventive relief cannot be had becaus
of want of jurisdiction over the only part
= against whom il can be enforced, it is eviden
that the auxiliary relief sought will be Of n
avail whatever, and cannot be made effectua
for any purpose ~ s>,., TX AZ.
= . No Judgment which the court can render i
i this action between the plaintiff and the re
spondents alone, can effect the legal title
i the land in question as against the State, j
(which such title is vested, nor as against an
Of its grantees, for the reason that che Stat
!, lis not : party to the action; and the land
themselves cannot be affected BY any sue
Judgment, for the reason that the action itse
d is. not . proceeding in Law, and the propert
has not been subjected TO- the Jurisdiction Q
g the court. In any view, therefore. the litigs
!. tion which is sought to be continued and cal
ried on between the plaintiff and tho respor
! dents alone must necessarily prove fruitle.
and abortiye. and this alone is sufficient caus
8 vshy Z court of enuity ON ohk "a refuse 70 er