From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. v. Independent School District No. 1

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jun 26, 1925
164 Minn. 66 (Minn. 1925)

Opinion

No. 24,937.

June 26, 1925.

Act of 1925, fixing boundaries of school districts, invalid because special legislation.

Chapter 134, L. 1925, fixing the boundaries of school districts in certain cases, applicable only to existing school districts which are made a class into which other districts cannot enter afterwards, is a local or special law in the guise of a general one, and is unconstitutional under article 4, § 33, of the Constitution.

See Statutes, 36 Cyc. p. 1010.

Upon the relation of Common School District No. 251 and another the supreme court granted its writ of quo warranto directed to respondent school district and others, commanding them to show by what warrant they assumed to exercise jurisdiction over that part of the district consisting of platted lands within the corporate limits of the city of Crookston. Writ of ouster ordered.

O'Brien Sylvestre, for relators.

Vaule Murphy, for respondents.



Writ of quo warranto issued by this court on the relation of the attorney general to test the right of School District No. 1 in Polk county to exercise jurisdiction over territory claimed to be within School District No. 251.

The question involves the constitutional validity of L. 1925, p. 121, c. 134, which provides:

"That any platted territory heretofore annexed to and included within the corporate limits of any city of the fourth class shall be a part of the organized school district then existing within such city, provided that this act shall not affect any school district whose territory includes two or more villages or parts thereof."

Crookston is a city of the fourth class. The statute assumes to put into School District No. 1 certain platted property in Crookston which at the time of its enactment was in District No. 251.

Under Const. art. 4, § 33, the legislature may pass no local or special law "incorporating, erecting or changing the lines of * * * any school district." It is enough to say that the statute is limited in its application to an existing class. No other district can come into it. It refers to "platted territory heretofore annexed to and included within the corporate limits of any city of the fourth class." The specific school districts are determined. For this reason, if for no other, it contravenes the constitutional provision quoted. Roe v. City of Duluth, 153 Minn. 68, 189 N.W. 429, and cases cited; Marwin v. Board, 140 Minn. 346, 168 N.W. 17, and cases cited; State v. Erickson, 140 Minn. 509, 167 N.W. 734; State v. Village of Gilbert, 127 Minn. 452, 149 N.W. 951; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531, 79 N.W. 535.

Let a writ of ouster issue.


Summaries of

State ex Rel. v. Independent School District No. 1

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Jun 26, 1925
164 Minn. 66 (Minn. 1925)
Case details for

State ex Rel. v. Independent School District No. 1

Case Details

Full title:STATE EX REL. CLIFFORD L. HILTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL…

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Jun 26, 1925

Citations

164 Minn. 66 (Minn. 1925)
204 N.W. 572

Citing Cases

Millett v. City of Hastings

The act is not for a temporary or remedial purpose. Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264, 33 N.W. 800; State ex…

County Board of Education v. Borgen

Appellant invokes the general rule that, "An act, to avoid being special legislation, must be so framed as to…