Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-02-07
Supreme Court

State Of North Dakota,. in suprem,
Court. y y y
The Red R~iverayalley Brick Company
a Domestic Corporation, School Dis.
trict No. So. and The Township Of Fal.
coner, Of the CouItySof Grand Forks, N
d, Plaintiff and Respondents, VS.. The
City of Grand Forks a Public orpoCr.
alton, M. f. Murphy, as Mayor, Sin
Miller, as Assessor; and G. J.. Evanson
as Auditorfof the City Of Grand Forks,
Defendants and Appellants.
l.. The question of the ACCESSIBILITY OF
wisdom of annexing adjacent territory
TO an Incorporated city is a political CUES
tioE. @N &
z. Whether the authorities of an incor.
porated city have complied with the law
authorizing The annexation Of adjacent
territory, the effect Of irregularities OF
omissions in attempting to follow the
method of annexation prescribed by sta.
tute, what are the corporate limits Of
a city, whether It Is q corporation, wheth-
e rthe legislative authority has been X
ceeded In an attempt to extend the
boundaries, and similar questions. are
judicial questions. To-
3. proceeding in the nature of quo
warranto, under Sec. 1851 r. C.. 1905 was
not intended to provide the remedy for
an Unlawful Or irregular annexation Of
adjacent territory to an incorporated
city, when such proceeding is instituted
by individuals or those having special
interest on the subject.
l. Certiorari ~ not the proper pro-
ceeding by which to test the regularity
and the legality Of an attempted annex:
alton of adjacent territory to an incof-
porated city,,s1a least not when among
the facts alleged as rendering the pro.
.ceedings invalid, iare facts outside the
record made in the proceedings. of the
city authorities. u
3. Injunction is the appropriate rem
edy to prevent carrying into effect an in
valid attempt at annexation of territory
adjacent to an Incorporated city, whom
sought by q party having a special in
terest therein.
=. a school district and q township
have sufficient interest in a change of a
part of the territory included therein
from the township into the adjacent city,
by means Of WHICH the taxable real es.
tate in such township and district would
'be: greatly lessened and the rate of lax
alton materially increased, to qualify
them. to maintain an action to test the
validity of the annexation proceedings.
=. Under the facts of this case, a de.
lay Of loss than five months in institute
inc rrs0 rSrT * 80 - - NINA. - -
attempted annexation of adjacent terri
tory by the city'asof Grand. Forks. does
not constituteis ueil lachesr as will. defeat
the. acti0n. 1917 80. 49, W,
j 8. Sec. 1926 ER.iiC. 1906, as amended by
Chap. So. Laws Of 1909. permits. any. City
to extend its boundaries so as to; increase.
Its territory, not to exceed one-l1alf its
present area, by resolution of the City
Council passed by t%wo-thirds of the en-
tire members elect, ~.
Sec. 1926, as amended by the same act
requires such resolution to, be published
In the manner therein. set forth and cop.
les posted wttllitnv The territory proposed
to be annexed. aid pprovides that the ter
ritory described Ia such resolution shall
be included within, and become a part
of the city. unless a written protect, sign
ed by Q majority of the property owners
in the proposed extension, is filed as
therein provided, and that, if such pro-
test is filed, the Council shall hear tes-
timony, make a personal inspection, Of the
territory, when if in its opinion such ter
ritory ought to be annexed, and il, by
resolution passed W two.thirds of the
entire members elect, II: shall order such
territory to be included within the city,
it shall make and cause an order to be
made and entered. describing the terri.
tory annexed, whereunon the. territory
described In suclls4resolutfonc shall be in
cluded in, and become a part of, the
city. :
The City Coupcil of the city Of Grand
Forks passed a resolution describing and.
annexing certain territory to the city.
After notice duly given, property, own-
.ers filed protests against the anneXa-
ton. whereupon the original resolution
was amended so as to include material
" less territory than described in the
original resolution, and the territory DIES.
cribed in the amended resolution was
thereupon declared annexed to the city.
without the publication or posting Of any
notice of the amendment or Of the pro.
posed annexation of the lesser territor-
ity. Wv
1t is held that the annexation was rem
dered invalid by this procedure, fol. the
reason that the parties interested had
no notice Of any contemplated annexa-
ton of the territory finally attempted to
be annexed, and had no opportunity to
protect themselves and their rights as,
against such annexation. The change
from one municipality TO another, the
Increase in the rate ofttaxation. the add
ed burdens Incident to becoming a part
Of a city, are material to the rights OF
the parties affected.
9. The statute fefefre6-td-: aid pro.
viding for the annexation Of adjacent ter.
ritory to an Incorporated city, must be
strictly construed under. tile: doctrine OF
Stern VS. Fargo, Is 81. syy.; and Because
II valid, it grants cities. most .extraordi.
nary power. by permitting them to an
mex territory in direct opposition to the
wishes II protests of all the people
who's interests are to.be affected. and be-
cause this power is only granted upon
a condition precedent, that the statute
shall be complied with.
(Syllabus by the Court.) :
Action by above named respondents to
enjoin the city of Grand FORKS and its
officers from lcvying and collecting tax
es and exercising jurisdiction over cer-
tain territory attempted to be annexed
- ~ o.. sts