The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-01-24
POLICE FUND
IS The CITY'S
Supreme Court Decides Police
Relief Case.
THE "SPLIT-UP" rs OFF
Gift of Funds by the City Created
a Trust.
MONEY NOW REVERTs TO CITY
Principle of LAVA Taxpay-
ers' victory.

twenty-five thousand dollars is added to
the citys credit as the result of the action
Of R. D. Cone to prevent the distribution
Of all Minneapolis police department. re-
lief association funds among the members
Of the dissolving Organization. A de-
cision affirming the decision of the lower
court was handed down in the state SUI
preme court to-day. 1t is signed by JUS
tice Collins.
When the Police Relief Association went
into the hands of receiver last year, it
had about $4,000 in it's treasury. The
plan was to distribute the money equally
among the policemen who were members
at the time of the dissolution. This
meant that some men who had paid only
$40 or SIS dues would receive that money
back and $500 besides. When the associa-
ton was finally dissolved, a partial dis
tribution had been made and several
death claims paid reducing the amount in
the hands of Odin Void, receiver, to about
$50, 900. A large part of this fund had
been given to the association by the city,
which had devoted certain special fees
and fines to that purpose. On the ground
that the receiver had no right to dis
tribute such city funds, R. d. Cone, rep
| resenting the taxpayers interest, inter-
tribution was made. The principle was
| a new one. The case was argued for Mr
Cone by W. M. Babcock and George M
Nevins, who won in the trial court before
Judge Brooks The supreme court now
affirms that decision. It will now be II
order for an officer to be named by the
court to determine the exact proportion
of the fund on hand that belongs to the
city. It is thought that it will be al
least $685. 900. The supreme court holds
that the gift Of funds by the city ere
ated trust which was violated by tn
dissolution Of the association. The syl
| In re dissolution Of the minneapolis Polio.
Department Relief ;4 Al ascsation: R leone
intervening complainant, respondent, VS.
! Odin Void, as receiver of the Minneapolis
Police Department Relief Association ct al.
| appellants.
| ~
provisions Of G. S. 1894, chapter "a, title 3
| has no power to divert gift from the specif'
purpose designated by the donor, without hi
consent. When such corporation decline
to carry out the purpose or object OF gil
Of money as impressed upon such gift whel
| made, declines to use the money Tor In
purpose for which it was donated and by de
cree of court voluntarily dlssolves ana Ter
| inmates it's corporate existence, the amour
| ~ oft tO
! be distributed among the members of the or
ganization.
| Second-If municipal corporation has
! cause of action against another it is the dut
of it's officers to institute legal proceeding
and If they refuse to perform this PLAIN dut
a taxpayer may apply to court and be per
mitted to sue in equity in behalf OF himsel
and all others similarly situated to enforc
the right.
| Third-The Minneapolis Relief assoclat1o
was a. corporation organized to accumulat
funds through dues, assessments ana con
tributions Of members and donations 1ron
other persons, to- be used for certain, pre-
scribed purposes wholly beneficial In thel
nature BY S. L. 1881, chapter 14S, the legis
lature authorized the city to set apart an
pay over to the association so per cent Q
all amounts collected for dog licenses, to "b
used by said relief association for the pur
poses provided for and contemplated in it
articles of incorporation, constitution and by
laws" provided that the city council should
by resolution, authorize such payments. Tai
resolution was thereafter adopted by tn
council and payments We're made, aggregat
Ing about 100000 The association also re
| teiyed over s14 900 from members and legiti
,mately disbu1sed a little over one-sixth {
the entire sum accumulated It then at
tempted to amend its bylaws and to PERM
withdrawing members to each receive Gel
tain sum of money out OF the treasury l
addition to all amounts heretofore paid /
by them. After $4,000 was withdrawn in thi
way the court restrained further paymeI
upon Withdrawals and adiudged the amend
ment illegal. Proceedings were then com
menced by majority of the members to dis
| solve the association, terminate its exis,
ence and wind up its affairs and decree {
court was theEeupon entered d1ssolv1ng an
| ending the same and receiver OF its none
was appointed one Of the appellants hereil
The city was, with others, notified to fl
it's claim if it had any. It's officers refuse
to act in any manner and thereupon the cou1
permitted a taxpayer to intervene in the wine
, ing up proceedings and to file claim
behalf of the city for the amount theretofol
paid to the treasurer of the association undo
the law of 1891. less such part as had bee
properly disbursed. Held, that when the al
, ISOLATION took the money 1t was with tt
) prescribed conditions annexed to the gif
that the transaction was in the nature of
, resulting trust, and that upon failure
the trust, by the dissolution of the corpor:
ton, the amount on hand which had been pa
over by the city reverted to it. And held, TIL
! the court properly allowed the taxpayer
intervene and to present claim again
the association and that it was not necessa1
for such taxpayer to institute separate a
ton to recover the money. Held further, tn
| @b1 lonfc in,
! and the members of the late association, a
, in nc position to urge the elementary prop
: stion of law that court will not permit
trust to fail for want of a trustee, as rel
son why the irtervener's complaint failed
state cause of action. Order affirmed.
Collins, ].