STATE ex rel. WILLIAM F. LOWE v. GEORGE H. BARLOW and Others

Minnesota Supreme Court1915-03-19No. Nos. 19,246-(312)

129 Minn. 181

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment granting the peremptory writ of mandamus, ordering the city officials to call an election on the proposed charter.

A relator sought a writ of mandamus to compel city officials to hold an election on a proposed home rule charter for East Grand Forks. The charter had been prepared by a board of freeholders and delivered to the mayor in October 1914. The respondent officials argued the charter was not timely returned under the state constitution and that it could not be submitted to voters outside of a general election window that had already passed.

The court rejected both arguments. First, it determined that when computing the constitutional deadline for charter return, the six-month period should begin from the appointment of the final board member in April 1914, meaning the October delivery was timely. Second, the court held that even if the charter should have been submitted at a general election in November 1914, the governing body remained obligated to submit it at a special election, which the statute explicitly authorized. The court found no legal impediment to proceeding with a special election and no excessive delay that would defeat the mandamus remedy.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the charter was timely returned within the six-month constitutional deadline
Whether the charter could be submitted to voters at a special election after missing a general election window
Proper scope of judicial review in mandamus proceedings on motion for judgment on the pleadings

Procedural posture

The trial court granted the relator's motion for judgment on the pleadings and issued a peremptory writ of mandamus; this appeal challenges that judgment.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Dibell, C.

An alternative writ of mandamus was issued commanding the respondents to call an election to vote upon a proposed home rule charter for the city of East Grand Forks. The respondents made a return to the writ. The court ordered judgment on the pleadings directing the issuance of a peremptory writ. This appeal is from the judgment entered pursuant to the order.

The respondents claim that the charter was not returned to the mayor within the time prescribed by the Constitution.

On March 21, 1914, the judges of the áppropriate district appointed a board of 15 freeholders to frame a charter for the city of East Grand Forks. One did not accept. On April 24, 1914, the judges appointed another in his place. On April 30, 1914, all qualified.

On October 5, 1914, a proposed charter was submitted to the mayor by the board. The Constitution, art. 4, § 36, provides that the board shall, “within six months after its appointment, return to the chief magistrate of the said city or village a draft of said charter, signed by the members of said board, or a majority thereof.” If March 21, 1914, is taken as the date from which to compute the period of six months, the charter was not returned within the period fixed by the Constitution. If April 24, 1914, is taken as the date, it was returned within such period.

For the purpose of determining the date from which to reckon the six months’ period, under circumstances such as here stated, a date earlier than the date of the appointment of the last member, April 24, 1914, should not be taken. The proposed charter was returned in time. We construe the constitutional provision as to the return of the charter no further.

The respondents claim that the charter should have been submitted at the November 3, 1914, election and that it cannot now be submitted at all.

The Constitution provides that the charter “shall be submitted to the qualified voters of such city or village at the next election thereafter.” The statute (R. L. 1905, § 754) as amended by Laws 1909, p. 246, c. 214, § 1 (G-. S. 1913, § 1348), provides that the governing body “shall cause the proposed charter to be submitted at the next general election thereafter. occurring in said city or village within six months after the delivery of such draft, and, if there is tlo general city or village election occurring in said city or village within six months after the delivery of such draft, then the council ■or other governing body of said city or village shall cause the proposed charter to be submitted at a special election to be held within ■ninety days after the delivery of such draft as aforesaid. Provided, ■that said council or other governing body may call a special election for that purpose only at any time.”

The common council does not intend calling an election and submitting the charter unless required to do so. Whether the council •should call a special election involves no question of difficulty. Regular proceedings were had resulting in the framing of a charter pursuant to the authorization of the Constitution. That charter shouldgo before the people for ratification or rejection. If the ■council should have submitted it at the November 3, 1914, election, it should submit it now, having failed to submit it then. If it ■could not have been submitted legally then it can be submitted legally now. There is no question but that a charter may be submitted at .a special election. State v. Kiewel, 86 Minn. 136, 90 N. W. 160. It is quite unnecessary to determine whether the election referred to in the Constitution is a general state election.

There might of course be so much delay in requiring action by the public officials that a remedy by mandamus would be refused. This is not such a case.

Tbe facts upon wbicb we decide tbe appeal, a motion for judgment on the pleadings having been made by the relator, and it. having been granted, are those stated in the alternative writ and admitted by the return and the allegations of new matter in the return. The writ and the return are the pleadings in mandamus. G. S. 1913, § 8213; E. L. 1905, § 4563. In the record are findings, of fact and conclusions of law. They are improperly there. When a motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted there are no. findings. The court looks to the pleadings.

Judgment affirmed.