209 N.W. 658 | N.D. | 1926
Albert H. Sitte and Helen Sitte, owners of certain lands in the village of Abercrombie, North Dakota, on the 24th day of July, *160 1924, filed in the office of the village clerk of said village of Abercrombie a petition to disconnect the said lands from the said village.
After hearing on petition the village board finds: "That there is no newspaper published in the village of Abercrombie, aforesaid and that the newspaper published nearest to the village of Abercrombie is the Walcott Reporter a weekly legal newspaper published in the village of Walcott in said county; that notice of the filing of said petition and the hearing to be had thereupon was published in the Wahpeton Globe a newspaper published in the city of Wahpeton in said county, which said last named newspaper is published several miles further distant from the village of Abercrombie, than the said Walcott Reporter and that accordingly notice of the filing of said petition and the hearing to be had thereupon has not been published as required by law and that this board has not acquired jurisdiction to finally and legally determine the matter of said application and petition." If the board did not acquire jurisdiction it of course had no authority to proceed further, and likewise the district court, before which the matter was brought on certiorari, was without jurisdiction.
It is the contention of the defendants that the board of trustees have no authority to act at all until the notice of hearing has been published in accordance with § 3970, Comp. Laws 1913, which reads as follows:
"No final action shall be taken by the city council or the board of trustees, as the case may be, upon any petition presented in pursuance of the provisions of the last two sections until notice of the presentation of such petition has been given by the petitioners by publication at least once in each week for two successive weeks in some newspaper published in the city, town or village where the petition is presented; or if no newspaper is published therein, then in the newspaper published nearest thereto."
Counsel for the plaintiff concedes that the publication of the notice is jurisdictional. He further concedes that "Walcott" is two miles nearer the town of Abercrombie than "Wahpeton," but claims that the publication in the "Wahpeton Globe" is a substantial compliance with the law.
The language used in § 3970 is mandatory. It says: "No final action shall be taken by the city council or the board of trustees, as the case may be, upon any petition . . . until notice . . . of *161
such petition has been given . . . by publication . . . in some newspaper published in the city, town or village . . . or if no newspaper is published therein, then in the newspaper published nearest thereto." In construing this section, the South Dakota court, in the case of Weiland v. Ashton,
The rule is stated in McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, in §§ 281-283, as follows: "Proceedings to annex or to detach territory, or extend or reduce corporate limits, to be valid, must, in substance, follow the essential requirements of the laws authorizing such action." State ex rel. Sigsbee v. Birmingham,
It is clear that the power to disconnect territory from a city, town, or village is in the same class with the power to annex territory to cities, towns or villages. It is a statutory power and since there is no authority *162 outside of the statute, there must be a strict compliance with its requirements.
In the case of Red River Valley Brick Co. v. Grand Forks,
In State ex rel. Minehan v. Meyers,
There being no newspaper in the village of Abercrombie, it was necessary under the law to publish the notice in a newspaper published nearest to the said town of Abercrombie, and the "Walcott Reporter," published at Walcott, was the nearest publication. It will not do to say that the notice of publication in the "Wahpeton Globe" was notice to the interested parties. The legislature has said that it must be published in the paper in the town, if there is one, and if there are none published in the city, town, or village, then in the one published nearest thereto.
The statutory notice was not given and it follows that the decision of the lower court must be, and is reversed, with instructions to dismiss the action. It is so ordered.
CHRISTIANSON, Ch. J., and JOHNSON, NUESSLE, and BIRDZELL, JJ., concur. *163