Remillard v. Blackmarr

52 N.W. 133, 49 Minn. 490, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 208
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 5, 1892
StatusPublished

This text of 52 N.W. 133 (Remillard v. Blackmarr) 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
Remillard v. Blackmarr, 52 N.W. 133, 49 Minn. 490, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 208 (Mich. 1892).

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

Ex. Sess. Laws 1857, ch. 18, entitled “An act to incorporate certain towns in this territory, and to provide for town governments within the same,” was a notable specimen of legislation. It contained fifty-two (52) sections. Each of the first thirty (30) sections described certain land, and declared it to be created a town corporate by the name given it in the section. Some of these sections provided what officers the town created by it should have, — in some instances a president, recorder; and trustees; in some a president and trustees, with power to appoint a recorder; in some only a council or board of trustees, — and wherever the section provided what officers the town should have it named the first set of such officers. In other sections the land was merely declared incorporated, without any provision as to what officers the incorporation should have, and without any indication how or by whom that matter should be determined. And, except in regard to the first set of officers appointed in some of the eases, and except that in one or two instances the “council” or “board of trustees” are authorized to fill vacancies, there is no provision pointing out how, when, or by whom the offices, even where it is provided what offices the corporation shall have, shall be filled. Section thirty-two (32) makes it the duty of the common council of said towns to enter so much land within [492]*492toe limits of tlie town as could be entered under the act of congress entitled “An act for the relief of citizens of towns upon lands of the United States under certain circumstances, approved May 23, 1854,” (1844.) Section thirty-three (33) makes it the duty of the town council of each of said towns not surveyed and platted to cause three hundred and twenty (320) acres to be surveyed and platted. Section thirty-four (34) provides that it shall be the duty of the town council of each of said towns to “deed, under the hands of the president, and attested by the recorder, and sealed with the seal of said corporation,” the lots to which, as it shall ascertain, each person is entitled under said act of congress. Sections 35, 36, 37, and 38 contain general provisions that apply to said towns, and 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 contain provisions that appear to relate only to one town. Section forty-five (45) provided when the act should take effect. Section forty-six (46) declared certain land to be created a town corporate by the name and style of Fond du Lae, and it named five persons as the town council, who were to hold their offices for one year, and until their successors should be elected and qualified; but it provided for no other officers, nor did it provide how, when, or by whom elections or appointments should be had of members of the council to succeed those appointed by the act. Sections 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 each create a town corporation; three of the sections providing for and appointing members of a town council, but no other office, and the other three not providing for any office at all.

The persons named in section forty-six (46) as the town council of Fond du Lac were E. B. Carlton, Alexander Paul, D. George Morrison, J. B. Culver, and Francois Eoussain. By Sp. Laws 1867, ch. 66, § 1, this section forty-six (46) was amended so as to provide, among other things, that a majority of the council should constitute a quorum to do business; that such quorum should have power to appoint their president, secretary or clerk, and treasurer. It seems that at some time — precisely when does not appear — Carlton was elected or came to be known as president, Morrison as recorder, and Culver as treasurer. It also appears, though it does not appear when, that, certain lands within the limits of the town were entered under the act of congress of 1844, and that a patent was issued — the [493]*493date does not appear — to “Reuben B. Carlton as president, Donald George Morrison as recorder, Joshua B. Culver as treasurer, Francois Roussain and Alexander Paul as trustees, of the town council of Fond' du Lac, St. Louis county, Minnesota, and as the proper corporate authorities thereof, in trust for the several use and benefit of the occupants thereof,” etc. Prior to September 1, 1867, Carlton and Alexander died, and their offices do not appear to have been filled. On that day the three survivors conveyed the land in controversy to Nareisse Remillard, professedly in execution of the trust under the act of congress. In the. deed they- were described as “D. George Morrison, recorder, J. B. Culver as treasurer, and Francois Roussain as trustee, surviving members of the town council of Fond du Lac,” etc., and they subscribed the deed as recorder, treasurer, and trustee, and affixed their seals and the seal of the corporation.

The objection made to this deed is that it is not “under the hand” of the president, as required by section thirty-four, (34,) aforesaid.

The act of congress referred to authorized the corporate authorities of any incorporated town settled upon public land to enter the same to the amount of 320 acres in trust for the several use and benefit of the several occupants thereof, the execution of the trust to be conducted under such rules and regulations as might be prescribed by the legislative authority of the state or territory.

The territorial act of March 3, 1855, (Pub. Stat. 1858, ch. 33,) provided for corporate authority executing such trusts.

So far as concerned power to enter the lands, to.assume and execute the trusts, the provisions of sections 32, 33, and 34 of Ex. Sess. Laws 1857, ch. 18, were wholly, unnecessary, for that power would have existed though nothing had been said about it in that act. As soon as the towns were incorporated with corporate authorities who could act, the power to enter the lands and to assume and execute the trusts would attach by virtue of the act of congress of 1844, — 5 U. S. Stat. ch. 17, p. 657, — and the territorial act of March 3, 1855, Pub. Stat. 1858, ch. 33. Section thirty-four, (34,) therefore, is not to be taken as in the nature of an enabling act; that is, as enabling the corporate authorities to do anything. The most that can be said of it is that it prescribes how the corporate authorities to which it is [494]*494applicable shall or may exercise the power already existing to carry the trust into effect. There might, in the absence of a provision like that in section thirty-four, (34,) be a suggestion that all the officers ■constituting the “corporate authorities” must join in the conveyance to the occupant, or that they might, by some formal act, designate some person to execute the conveyance for them.

There can be no doubt, under the act of congress and territorial act ■of 1855, that, if the council or board of trustees of an incorporated town are to be taken as the .“corporate authorities,” the trust would be well executed, so far as the conveyance is concerned, by all the members joining in their official capacity. It follows that, unless section thirty-four, (34,) was applicable to the town of Fond du Lac, and unless the mode of execution prescribed, to wit, under the hand of the president, is in exclusion of the mode that might otherwise have been pursued, this deed was properly executed.

It is argued on behalf of appellant that section thirty-four (34) does not apply to the towns created by any of the subsequent sections, because the terms “each of said towns” refer only to those mentioned in preceding sections. Strictly and ordinarily this would be so.

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

Related

Bohan v. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad
52 N.W. 133 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 N.W. 133, 49 Minn. 490, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remillard-v-blackmarr-minn-1892.