Home/Supreme Court of Minnesota/Truelsen v. City of Duluth

Truelsen v. City of Duluth

63 N.W. 714, 61 Minn. 48, 1895 Minn. LEXIS 288
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedMay 6, 1895
DocketNos. 9472—(324)
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 63 N.W. 714 (Truelsen v. City of Duluth) 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
Truelsen v. City of Duluth, 63 N.W. 714, 61 Minn. 48, 1895 Minn. LEXIS 288 (Mich. 1895).

Opinion

COLLINS, J.

One branch of this litigation, which grows out of a special election held in the city of Duluth under and by virtue of Sp. Laws 1891, c. 55, § 35, was before us at the last term. See opinion in 60 Minn. 132, 61 N. W. 911. On the case being remanded, it was duly brought to trial, and from a judgment affirming the validity of the election, and declaring three out of the ten propositions submitted to the voters duly carried, the contestant appeals. Quite a number of questions have been argued, but we shall consider only those which seem to have real merit.

Section 35, supra, authorizes the issuance of “water and light bonds” by the city to such an extent as may be necessary for the purpose of erecting and maintaining suitable water and light plants, or for purchasing any water or light plant in operation in said city. These bonds were to be issued, sold, and evidenced as were the general bonds of said city, and were to “be a first lien upon all water and light appliances and structures of every kind erected, owned, or purchased by said city.” Then follows a provision regulating the manner of issuance, as follows:

“Said water and light bonds shall be issued in the following manner:
“Whenever the common council may deem it expedient they shall submit to the legal voters of the city, at any general city election or at a special election to be called by said common council for that purpose, the proposition of issuing said water and light bonds to an amount deemed by them desirable to be issued at such time. Said election shall be called, if a special election, and whether special or general shall be conducted, in the same manner and with the same formalities as other city elections. The ballots to be voted at said election may read as follows:
“(1) In favor of the proposition of issuing water and light bonds to the extent of (here state amount) for the purpose of erecting or purchasing a water plant.
“(1) Against the proposition of issuing water and light bonds to the extent of (here state amount) for the purpose of erecting or purchasing a water plant.
“(2) In favor of the proposition of expending the moneys derived from the sale of said bonds in erecting a water plant.
[50]*50“(2) In favor of the proposition of expending the moneys derived from the sale of said bonds in purchasing a water plant already in existence in said city.
“(3) In favor of the proposition of issuing water and light bonds to the extent of (here state amount) for the purpose of erecting a light plant for the city of Duluth.
“(3) Against the proposition of issuing water and light bonds to the extent of (here state amount) for the purpose of erecting a light plant for the city of Duluth.
“(4) In favor of the proposition of using the moneys derived from the sale of said bonds in erecting a light plant for said city.
“(4) In favor of the proposition of using the money derived from the sale of said bonds for purchasing a light plant already in existence in said city.
“If a majority of the votes cast at said election shall be in favor of issuing water and light bonds, the city of Duluth shall, through its proper officers, without further act, be authorized to issue said bonds to the amount voted and to sell and negotiate the same as other city bonds. It shall be the duty of the common council to expend the moneys derived from the sale of said bonds in accordance with the directions of the voters as shown by said election.
“Said common council may from time to time thereafter submit the proposition of issuing additional water and light bonds, in such ¡additional sums as they may deem wise, to the legal voters of said uity. The ballots may be in substantially the foregoing forms, with ¡such changes as may be necessary, and, if a majority of the votes cast at such election shall be in favor of issuing said additional water and light bonds, the said city of Duluth, through its proper officers, shall be authorized to issue such additional water and light bonds as may be authorized by said voters.”

We shall hereinafter have occasion to refer to other provisions of section 35, but will now pass to the fact that, by resolution of the common council, there was called a special election, to be held October 26, 1894, at which time should be submitted to the electors of the city 10 distinct propositions relating to the issuing of bonds for adoption or rejection. The propositions were distinctly stated in the resolution and the form of the ballot, prescribed. These propositions were set out, and the form followed in the ballot actually, used, which was as follows:

[51]

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

Related

Green v. Independent Consolidated School District No. 1
68 N.W.2d 493 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1955)
Keokuk Waterworks Co. v. Keokuk
277 N.W. 291 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1938)
State Ex Rel. Village of Upper Sandusky v. Snyder
194 N.E. 415 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1935)
Sexton v. Lee
130 S.E. 437 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1925)
Logan v. City of Bismarck
194 N.W. 908 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1923)
State ex rel. Pike County v. Gordon
188 S.W. 88 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1916)
Tulloch v. City of Seattle
124 P. 481 (Washington Supreme Court, 1912)
State ex rel. Horsley v. Carbon County
114 P. 522 (Utah Supreme Court, 1911)
State ex rel. Williams v. Sawyer County
123 N.W. 248 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1909)
State ex rel. School District v. Gordon
122 S.W. 1008 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Stern v. City of Fargo
122 N.W. 403 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1909)
State ex rel. City of Chillicothe v. Wilder
98 S.W. 465 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
City of Leavenworth v. Wilson
76 P. 400 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1904)
City of Denver v. Hayes
28 Colo. 110 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1900)
Baumann v. City of Duluth
69 N.W. 919 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1897)
Janeway v. City of Duluth
68 N.W. 24 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 N.W. 714, 61 Minn. 48, 1895 Minn. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/truelsen-v-city-of-duluth-minn-1895.