State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Alice

127 N.W. 1118, 112 Minn. 330, 1910 Minn. LEXIS 871
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedNovember 4, 1910
DocketNos. 16,734—(254)
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 127 N.W. 1118 (State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Alice) 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
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Alice, 127 N.W. 1118, 112 Minn. 330, 1910 Minn. LEXIS 871 (Mich. 1910).

Opinions

Staet, O. J.,

Quo warranto proceedings to test the incorporation of the village of Alice, which claims to be a municipal corporation by virtue of R. L. Supp. 1909, §§ 700 — 704. The statute in form was complied with, and if the facts were sufficient to bring the case within the statute the village is a de jure municipality of the state. The respondents made answer to the petition, to which the relator interposed a general demurrer.

The question for our decision is whether the facts admitted by the demurrer were such as authorized the incorporation of the village by a compliance with the forms of the statute, the material provisions of which are these: “Any district, section or parts of section not in any incorporated village, * ■* * which has been platted into lots and blocks, also the lands adjacent thereto, * * * containing a resident population of not more than three thousand nor less than two hundred may become incorporated as a village in the manner hereinafter prescribed. But the unplatted part of such territory must adjoin the platted portion and be so conditioned as properly to be subjected to village government.”

The creation of municipal corporations is solely a matter for the legislature, which it cannot delegate to the courts; but it has provided by a general statute the conditions upon which any specified territory may be incorporated, if a majority of the electors residing thereon so determine by a majority vote. When the illegality of the incorporation of any territory under the statute is challenged in the courts, the only question which can be considered is whether the facts bring the case within the conditions. No inflexible rule can be laid down by which the question can be answered; for each [332]*332case must depend, to some extent at least, on its own particular facts. Neither the extent of the adjacent territory nor its relative value to the platted territory is one of the conditions found in the statute; but the unplatted part of the territory “must adjoin * * • * and be so conditioned as properly to be subjected to village government.”

Whether the adjacent territory may be properly subjected to village government is not to be determined by the pecuniary interests of the owners thereof; but their land cannot arbitrarily be brought into the village simply for the purpose of increasing its revenues by taxing it. The adjacent lands must be so near to the center of the platted lands as to be somewhat suburban in their character. The final test is whether the platted territory and the adjacent territory are so limited in area and have such a natural connection, and the people residing thereon have such a community of interest, that the whole may be properly subjected to village government. State v. Minnetonka Village, 57 Minn. 526, 59 N. W. 972, 25 L.R.A. 755; State v. Village of Fridley Park, 61 Minn. 146, 63 N. W. 613; State v. Village of Holloway, 90 Minn. 271, 96 N. W. 40; State v. Village of Gilbert, 107 Minn. 364, 120 N. W. 528.

These, cases, in all of which the incorporation was held void, illustrate the practical application of the rules stated. The here relevant facts in the first one were briefly these: The territory claimed to have been incorporated consisted of thirty square miles of land, within which there were some seventeen tracts which had been platted, but were separated by farms or uncultivated lands. Many of the platted tracts were entirely vacant and uninhabited, and on the others there were not inhabitants sufficient to constitute a village in the ordinary sense of the term. The territory involved in the second case was from five to six miles in length, and from one to three miles in width, and included more than fifteen square miles of land, within which there were over thirty different tracts platted into lots and blocks. Many of these platted tracts were separated by intervening farming land. On two sections of the land there were no buildings, and the number on the other sections ranged from three to twelve.

The territory sought to be incorporated in the next ease was [333]*333five miles long and from one to two miles in width, and contained nearly six sections of land, only forty acres of which was platted, on which only one hundred inhabitants resided. The rest of the territory consisted of farms, occupied by resident farmers, with their families. The territory in question in the last case cited consisted of twenty-two hundred forty acres, of which eighty acres were platted, but only ninety-eight persons resided thereon. The rest of the tract consisted of wild cut-over lands, not inhabited, and three iron mines. There were separate settlements from a half to one and one-half miles distant from the platted tract, around the several mines, aggregating three hundred thirty-five people. Intervening the mines and the platted part on the south, which was not incorporated, two hundred eighty-eight people resided. It was urged as a reason for including the wild lands and the mines in the village corporation that it was necessary for the purposes of police and fire protection.

A consideration of the particular facts of each of the cases cited led the court to the conclusion that the alleged adjacent lands could not be subjected to the government of the village, and the municipalities were dissolved. We have, then, the question whether the special facts in the case at bar differentiate it from those cited.

The facts in this case, as alleged in the answer or admitted, so far as here material, are to the effect following: The territory attempted to be incorporated comprised sections 12 and 13, township 57, range 21, being two miles long and one mile wide. The north line of section 12 is the south line of the village of Hibbing, the population of which is some twenty thousand. There are no permanent dwelling houses nor permanent residents on section 12, but the Scranton iron mine is located and operated on the northeast quarter thereof. The principal occupation of many of the workingmen of the village is working in or about this mine and others. There is maintained on the property of the mining company a storehouse for dynamite and other highly explosive substances, also a pesthouse, in which patients are treated for contagious and infectious diseases. Three forties of the east tier of forties in section 13 had been platted and had a resident population of two hundred thirty-three when pro[334]*334ceedings were taken to incorporate. Since then two more forties, being the south half of the southeast quarter of section 13, have been platted. The north line of the platted part is half a mile from the quarter on which the Scranton iron mine is located. All of section 12, except that part used by the Scranton mine, is wild and unoccupied land, eleven forties of which are held by mining and land companies for mining interests. All of section 13, except the plattc 1 portion, is vacant. Little, if any, of the territory of the village is suitable for agricultural purposes. Two railroad lines run through the village, one through the platted portion. The natural drainage of the village is a creek, which passes through it and near to the platted portion thereof, the waters of which are contaminated by the sewage from the village of Iiibbing. The answer alleges other facts, but none which modify the brief summary we have given.

The area of the village here in question is materially less than in the cases cited.

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

Related

Town of Burnsville v. City of Bloomington
128 N.W.2d 97 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1964)
Grudnosky v. Bislow
88 N.W.2d 847 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1958)
State Ex Rel. Township of Copley v. Village of Webb
83 N.W.2d 788 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1957)
Thorland v. Independent Consolidated School District No. 44
74 N.W.2d 410 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1956)
In Re Certain School Districts, Freeborn County
246 Minn. 96 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1956)
State Ex Rel. Danielson v. Village of Mound
48 N.W.2d 855 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1951)
State Ex Rel. Northern Pump Co. v. Village of Fridley
47 N.W.2d 204 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1951)
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. So-Called Village of St. Anthony
26 N.W.2d 193 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1947)
State Ex Rel. Burnquist v. Village of Leetonia
298 N.W. 717 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1941)
State Ex Rel. Town of Stuntz v. City of Chisholm
273 N.W. 235 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1937)
State Ex Rel. Erickson v. Gram
210 N.W. 616 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1926)
State Ex Rel. v. So-Called "Village of Minnewashta"
206 N.W. 455 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1925)
State ex rel. Hilton v. City of Nashwauk
186 N.W. 694 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1922)
State ex rel. Hilton v. Village of Buhl
184 N.W. 850 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1921)
State ex rel. Hilton v. Village of Kinney
178 N.W. 815 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1920)
State ex rel. Smith v. Village of Gilbert
149 N.W. 951 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
Schweigert v. Abbott
142 N.W. 723 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1913)
Lehigh Sewer Pipe & Tile Co. v. Incorporated Town of Lehigh
136 N.W. 934 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1912)
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Alice
130 N.W. 948 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1911)
State ex rel. Simpson v. Village of Dover
130 N.W. 74 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 N.W. 1118, 112 Minn. 330, 1910 Minn. LEXIS 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-simpson-v-village-of-alice-minn-1910.