St. Paul daily globe., 1892-06-28
ON A TECHNICALITY.
Inspector Willis Not the Prop
er officer to Sue Oil
Companies.
The Appeal Arising Out Of
the Long Renewed Oil
Fees Warfare.
Big Batch Of Other Decisions
From the State Appel
late Bench.
Legal Knots United to the
Satisfaction Of Litigants
and Lawyers.

Chief Justice Gilfillan. of the supreme
court. yesterday handed down deci-
sion in the much talked of oil inspector
case. The Judgment of the lower court
is reversed. but the decision is victory
for Ii. B. Willis, the state OIL inspector,
nevertheless, and the Oil companies
will probably come forward and pay the
fees for inspection, over which all this
legal wrangle has been created. The
amount in dispute in the suit is only
about $500, but the point at issue
meant thousands of dollars to
the state from oil inspection. Mr.. Willis
won his case in the lower court and the
rulings of that court are sustained i'll
every particular 10y the chief justice,
who reverses the Judgment on techni-
cal point merely. This is in the fact
that Willis is not the proper party to
bring suit under the circumstance. Fol-
lowing is the syllabus of the case:
By section 4, chapter 246. Laws 1889, pro-
viding for the inspection Of Illuminating oils
in tank cars, the Legislature intended the in
spection to be made in such tank cars with
out reference to the will of the owner.
If the owner removes the Oil from such
tank cars without inspection, the inspector
may follow and inspect 1t in the place to
which it is taken and charge the same fees
as for inspecting in the tank car.
Such oils, when subject to the inspection
laws of this state, and held and designed for
sale in this state. may be inspected, though
not vet put upon the market for sale.
That section is not in violation of the state
constitution.
On its face the act is bona fide police reg
ulation, proper inspection law, and not q
law levying a tax. What is a reasonable fee
for inspection under such laws must depend
largely upon the sound discretion of the
legislature, having reference to all the cir
cumStances and necessities OF the case; and
unless it is manifestly unreasonable in view
of the purpose of the law as police regu-
lation. the court will not adjudge ita tax.
There is nothing in the law from which we
can say the fee is unreasonable.
salaried officer, whose duty it is to col
lect fees pertaining to his Office and pay them
into the state treasury. is not the proper
party plaintiff to all action to collect such
fees
After discussing at length the legal
points raised In the suit the chief JUS
tice,. in his opinion, which covers sew
eral type written pages, says with refer
ence TO the issue upon which he re-
verses the decison: 1--WE have thought
it proper to discuss all other questions
made in this case in full, although from
the view we take of question not
yet referred to we might have avoided
doing so at present.. The defendants
object that the inspector cannot main-
tain a suit for collection of fees, and
that such suit must be brought by real
parties Interested. The Inspector is a
saIaried officer. The fees belong to the
state. He collects them monthly, makes
monthly statement and is under oath
to pay them into the state treasury.
The mere authority to collect moneys
belonging to another does not make the
person authorized a trustee of an eX
press trust: the inspector is not eX-
pressly authorized by statute to bring
suit. Cases decided under the rule at
common law as cited to show that a
public officer has implied authority to
bring a suit which may be required for
the proper discharge of mis- official du-
ties. The question what officers might
sue in their official character and in
what cases seems in doubt. The actual
decisions do not go further than hold
ing that where public officers are
clothed with corporate or quasi cor
porate character the capacity to sue
may be allowed. They must then sue
as the real party. The inspector has no
corporate or quasi corporate character,
and. not being expressly authorized by
statute to sue for the fees, he is not the
proper party plaintiff. For this reason
the judgment must be reversed"