Everett v. Smith

22 Minn. 53, 1875 Minn. LEXIS 23
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJuly 10, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 22 Minn. 53 (Everett v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Everett v. Smith, 22 Minn. 53, 1875 Minn. LEXIS 23 (Mich. 1875).

Opinion

Berry, J.

Section 1, art. 11, of the constitution of this state declares that “all laws * * * for removing county seats shall, before taking effect, be submitted to the electors of the county or counties to be affected thereby, at the next general election after the passage thereof, and be adopted by a majority of such electors.” The only question in this case is, what is meant by the words, “ a majority of such electors ? ”

In Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107, the same question was presented, and deliberately considered by this court, by which it was distinctly determined that the words, “a. majority of such electors,” as used in the provision of the constitution, mean a majority of the electors voting at the election. This was a construction of the language of the constitution, irrespective of the particular facts appearing in the [55]*55case as to registry lists. The case of Taylor v. Taylor was followed, and the same construction given to this constitutional provision, in Bayard v. Klinge, 16 Minn. 249. So far as the question under consideration is concerned, the case at bar cannot be distinguished from the cases cited. The question must be regarded as settled in this court. If there are constitutional provisions as to which a court would refuse to be bound by previous constructions, conflicting with its own views of correct construction, the provision involved in this case is not one of them.

Order reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Democratic-Farmer-Labor State Central Committee v. Holm
33 N.W.2d 831 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1948)
State Ex Rel. Maffett v. Turnbull
3 N.W.2d 674 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1942)
Hevelone v. City of Beatrice
234 N.W. 791 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1931)
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Williams
130 So. 428 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
In Re East Bay Etc. Water Bonds of 1925
239 P. 38 (California Supreme Court, 1925)
East Bay Municipal Utility District v. Hadsell
196 Cal. 725 (California Supreme Court, 1925)
Lawrence County v. Lawrence Fiscal Court
229 S.W. 139 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1921)
State ex rel. Hundley v. Goodwyn
98 S.E. 577 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1919)
Eikmeier v. Steffen
155 N.W. 92 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1915)
State ex rel. Burdick v. Tyrrell
149 N.W. 280 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1914)
Bell v. City of Ocala
62 Fla. 431 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1911)
Ray v. Armstrong
131 S.W. 1039 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1910)
Green v. Felton
84 N.E. 166 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1908)
Knight v. Shelton
134 F. 423 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas, 1905)
State ex rel. Granvold v. Porter
91 N.W. 944 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
State ex rel. Greene v. Hugo
86 N.W. 784 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1901)
In re Denny
51 L.R.A. 722 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1901)
Davis v. Brown
34 S.E. 839 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1899)
Tecumseh National Bank v. Saunders
71 N.W. 779 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1897)
State ex rel. Childs v. Pioneer Press Co.
68 N.W. 769 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Minn. 53, 1875 Minn. LEXIS 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-smith-minn-1875.