St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-07-01
WHAT CAN MINNIE DO?
Supreme Court PronounceS
Void an Act Of the Last
Legislature,
Which Empowered Minneapo-
lis to Issue More Bonds for
a Court House.
Judge Collins Quotes Against
1t the Special Legislation
Amendment.
Several Points Touching Con-
tracts Elueidated by the
Court.

The famous Minneapolis court house
ana city hall case has finally been dis
posed of by the appellate court. 1t re-
suits III signal victory for the county
auditor over the city hall and court
house commission, and the citizens of
the Mill City may breathe easier.
The title of the action is The State of
Minnesota ex rel. Board of Court House
and City Hall Commissioners of the
City of Minneapolis and County of Hen
nepin, relator. against CLAYTON r.
Cooley. County Auditor of Hennepin
County, appellant.
1t is related that by the provisions of
general law the board of commission
ers mentioned was created and clothed
with power to acquired site for the court
house and city hall in Minneapolis, and
the issuance of bonds was authorized
to meet the cost. These bonds were to
be countesigued by the county auditor.
The bonds were issued aud sold. and
the work upon the structure be-
gun. This progressed until about
Jan: l last, and the building was
then unfinished. There were not
enough funds available to complete the
work. and interested parties secured
the passage of all act at the last session
of the Legislature authorizing the sale of
additional bonds under the same con-
diuons that obtained relative to the
first issue. Those bonds were pre-
scented to the auditor for his "John,
Hancock" and he peremptCriiy re-
fused to sign. Thereupon pro-
ceedlng in mandamus was brought 10
compel him to perform this alleged
daty.
Auditor Cooley justified his course
upon the hypothesis that the act of the
last legislature was void because inter
dlcted by section 80, OF act 4. of the state
constitution, relative 10 special legisla-
ton. Upon this point an appeal was
taken TO the supreme court, and Justice
Collins. III his opinion. eXclaims that
"'ln all cases where general law can
DE made applicable
No Special Law Shall BE Enacted:
and whether a general law could have
been made applicable in any case, is
hereby declared q judicial question,
aid, as such, snail be judicially deter
mined without regard to any legislative
assertion on that subject"
Then it is held that, while the legis-
lature cannot enact special laws. it may
repeal, out shall not amend, modify or
extend any of the same. Finally it is
declared that 1.-THE result of this legis-
lation may prove very unfortunate in
the present condition Of the building in
QUESTION. buL under the constitutional
provision the statute of 1887 could not
have been lawfully enacted, and that of
1888 is clearly within the prohibition"
III other words, Justice Collins holds
that the original act is special legisla-
ton, and therefore could not be amend
ell or extended by an act passed after
the adoption OF the constitutional pro-
vision prohibiting special legislation.
The syllabus reads:
An act of the legislature. entitled "An
act to provide additional means for COM
plotting and furnishing the court house
and city hall building, now III process
of erection in the city of Minneapolis,
and to authorize the issue and sale of
bonds therefore," approved April 8,
1898, is unconstitutional and void, be-
cause prohibited by that portion of sec.
SO, art, 4. of the constitution, which for
bids the passing Of any local or special
law regulating the affairs of any coun-
ty, city. village, township, WarJ or
school district"
Law on Contracts.
William Grant Jr, appellant, VS.. Adolph
Munich Ell al, respondents Judgmen
affirmed. COLLINS j.
Syllabus. The intention of the
parties to a contract for the sale and
conveyance of real property, clearly
and unequivocally expressed, that time
is of the essence of the agreement, must
govern in equity as we'll as law.
2. In such contract it was Stipu-
lated that the agreement should be void
at the election of the vendors in case
the vendee defaulted in the payment of
part of the purchase price according
to the conditions of his pr0missory note
of even date Herewith. This note as
made payable at certain bank, was
there for collection when due aud was
not paid. The vendors gave immediate
notice that they had elected to declare
the contract void and with this notice
returned the note. Held, that it was
hot necessary for the vendors to pre-
pare and have at the bank in readiness
for delivery when the note matured a
deed of conveyance of the premises.
Nor was it incumbent upon tkem to re-
turn that part of the purchase price
already paid in order to exercise their
right to declare the contract void
James Pye, appellant VS.. Ole a. Paddoc ct
al, respondents. Order affirmed.
COLLINS, d.
Syllabus-1. Upon an examination
of the answer herein, it is held that
the allegations therein respecting to an
oral contract between the parties were
irrelevant and redundant, and should
have been stricken out on motion. Held
further that independently of those al
legations, facts sufficient TO constitute a
defense by way of counter claim for a
breach of contract were contained in
said answer.
2. Certain assignments of error rela-
live to the admission of testimony
considered.
3. Held further that there was evi.
dence tending to support the verdict.
". II. Tompkins ct al, appellants VS.. Will
lam Forrestal e. al, respondents. Order re
Tersed. COLLINS, j.
Syllabus-1. Statutes which change
the rule as to parties necessary to the
determination of controversies will take
effect upon prior as we'll as subsequent
contracts or transactions and the actions
arising therefrom.
2. That part of State Laws 1891. chap
ter 55, section Is Charter of the CITY Of
DULUTH, which authorizes any person
who has not been paid for labor per
formed for or materials furnished 10 {
contractor with the city, to bring a sui
in his own name against said contractor
and his bondsmen. applies to actions
brought to enforce liability upon a
bond executed under the provisions q
the original charter, S. L. 1887. CHI. 2
sec. ;.
3. The notice 10 the city prescribed
In said section Is is no part of th'
plaintiffs cause Of action. aid it wa
error OF the court below to pass upol
the question OF service of such motto,
III its findings as question of fact
Proof of service need not be made unit
after Judgment has been ordered.
t. In the case at bar the findings O
Il Leader.
Since its first introduction. Electri,