Minnesota Supreme Court, 1889

Christlieb v. County of Hennepin

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 27, 1889 · Mitchell

41 Minn. 142; 42 N.W. 930; 1889 Minn. LEXIS 292 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Shaw é Cray and Gray & Pulliam, for relators., Keith, Evans, Thompson é Fairchild, for respondent.

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 1951, 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

5 later published cases cite this decision.

State Ex Rel. Huntley School District No. 4 JT. v. Schweickhard (Minn. 1951)
In re Johnson (Minn. 1921)
State ex rel. Hardy v. Clough (Minn. 1896)
Moede v. County of Stearns (Minn. 1890)
Fitzgerald v. Mayor of Boston (Mass. 1915)

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

Mitchell, J.

It is here sought, by writ of certiorari, to review the action of the board of county commissioners, in April, 1889, organizing a new town out of a part of the town of Medina, and also, as bearing upon that, the previous action of the same body in 1868, and again in 1884, detaching certain territory from the town of Excelsior, and attaching it to the town of Medina. These acts were purely po*143litical or legislative in their nature, and will not be reviewed on certiorari. In re Wilson, 32 Minn. 145, (19 N. W. Rep. 723;). Lamont v. County of Dodge, 39 Minn. 385, (40 N. W. Rep. 359.) That the county board has, in such cases, to ascertain and determine the existence of certain facts does not, of itself, make the acts judicial in their nature. Home Ins. Co. v. Flint, 13 Minn. 228, (244;) State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 29, (14 N. W. Rep. 58.) Counsel waive, or at least do not urge, this point, and suggest the importance of a speedy determination of the status of these towns. But every consideration of public policy requires that we confine this writ to its legitimate office, which is to review proceedings judicial in their nature; otherwise we would soon be called upon to supervise the ministerial and legislative acts of all the various public officers and municipal bodies in the state, to the detriment of other business properly before us, and at the risk of encroaching upon the powers of the other departments of government.

Writ quashed.

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