Minnesota Supreme Court, 1887

City of St. Paul v. Hennessy

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 27, 1887 · Dickinson

38 Minn. 94; 35 N.W. 576; 1887 Minn. LEXIS 328 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Young & Lightner, for defendant., W. P. Murray and T. D. O’Brien, for plaintiff.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1937, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Grieger v. Meinke (Minn. 1937)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Dickinson, J.

The complaint was insufficient to justify a criminal prosecution under the act upon which the prosecution was founded, Sp. Laws 1887, c. 343. To present a case within the terms of section 25, the building must be “unsafe so as to endanger life.” In this complaint the building is only alleged to be “dangerous, having been heretofore damaged by fire.” The nature of the danger is not disclosed, nor, if the peril related to persons, and not to property, is *95it alleged to have been such as to “endanger life.” The only other •sections of the act defining the crime and providing for its punishment are the 26th and 27th. The former declares that “every building which shall appear to the inspector to be specially dangerous in «ase of fire * * * shall be held to be unsafe.” Section 27 prescribes the penalty to be imposed upon the owner or party having an interest in “the unsafe building or structure mentioned in the two preceding sections,” for neglect to remove the same. The complaint is insufficient under section 26, for this reason, at least, that it does not appear that the building is dangerous “in case of fire.” So far as appears by the complaint, the only danger may have been that the building might be prostrated by the wind, to the injury of adja«ent property.

Judgment reversed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.