City of St. Paul v. Hennessy

Supreme Court of Minnesota

City of St. Paul v. Hennessy

35 N.W. 576, 38 Minn. 94, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 328

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 27, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 N.W. 576 (City of St. Paul v. Hennessy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of St. Paul v. Hennessy, 35 N.W. 576, 38 Minn. 94, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 328 (Mich. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Dickinson, J.

The complaint was insufficient to justify a criminal prosecution under the act upon which the prosecution was founded, Sp. Laws 1887, c. 343. To present a case within the terms of section 25, the building must be “unsafe so as to endanger life.” In this complaint the building is only alleged to be “dangerous, having been heretofore damaged by fire.” The nature of the danger is not disclosed, nor, if the peril related to persons, and not to property, is [95]*95it alleged to have been such as to “endanger life.” The only other •sections of the act defining the crime and providing for its punishment are the 26th and 27th. The former declares that “every building which shall appear to the inspector to be specially dangerous in «ase of fire * * * shall be held to be unsafe.” Section 27 prescribes the penalty to be imposed upon the owner or party having an interest in “the unsafe building or structure mentioned in the two preceding sections,” for neglect to remove the same. The complaint is insufficient under section 26, for this reason, at least, that it does not appear that the building is dangerous “in case of fire.” So far as appears by the complaint, the only danger may have been that the building might be prostrated by the wind, to the injury of adja«ent property.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dickinson, J.

The complaint was insufficient to justify a criminal prosecution under the act upon which the prosecution was founded, Sp. Laws 1887, c. 343. To present a case within the terms of section 25, the building must be “unsafe so as to endanger life.” In this complaint the building is only alleged to be “dangerous, having been heretofore damaged by fire.” The nature of the danger is not disclosed, nor, if the peril related to persons, and not to property, is [95]*95it alleged to have been such as to “endanger life.” The only other •sections of the act defining the crime and providing for its punishment are the 26th and 27th. The former declares that “every building which shall appear to the inspector to be specially dangerous in «ase of fire * * * shall be held to be unsafe.” Section 27 prescribes the penalty to be imposed upon the owner or party having an interest in “the unsafe building or structure mentioned in the two preceding sections,” for neglect to remove the same. The complaint is insufficient under section 26, for this reason, at least, that it does not appear that the building is dangerous “in case of fire.” So far as appears by the complaint, the only danger may have been that the building might be prostrated by the wind, to the injury of adja«ent property.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 N.W. 576, 38 Minn. 94, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-st-paul-v-hennessy-minn-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack