Schamber v. Hutchinson County

South Dakota Supreme Court

Schamber v. Hutchinson County

5 N.W.2d 409, 68 S.D. 622, 1942 S.D. LEXIS 86

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 29, 1942

DocketFile No. 8547.

StatusPublished

This text of 5 N.W.2d 409 (Schamber v. Hutchinson County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schamber v. Hutchinson County, 5 N.W.2d 409, 68 S.D. 622, 1942 S.D. LEXIS 86 (S.D. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Chapter 32, Laws of 1941, purports to increase the salary of certain county officials. Plaintiff was *Page 623 holding a county office coming within the terms of the 1941 law at the time this law became effective. The question presented by this record is whether the said Chapter 32, is constitutional, in so far as it purports to increase the salary of a county official during the term which he was serving when the law became effective.

The question now presented has been before this court on three occasions. Hauser v. Seeley, 18 S.D. 308, 100 N.W. 437; State ex rel. Lamm v. Spartz, 62 S.D. 593, 255 N.W. 797; Clark v. Board of County Commissioners, 64 S.D. 417, 267 N.W. 138. We adhere to the holding in the cases of State ex rel. Lamm v. Spartz, supra, and Clark v. Board of County Commissioners, supra.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

All the Judges concur.

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

Chapter 32, Laws of 1941, purports to increase the salary of certain county officials. Plaintiff was *Page 623 holding a county office coming within the terms of the 1941 law at the time this law became effective. The question presented by this record is whether the said Chapter 32, is constitutional, in so far as it purports to increase the salary of a county official during the term which he was serving when the law became effective.

The question now presented has been before this court on three occasions. Hauser v. Seeley, 18 S.D. 308, 100 N.W. 437; State ex rel. Lamm v. Spartz, 62 S.D. 593, 255 N.W. 797; Clark v. Board of County Commissioners, 64 S.D. 417, 267 N.W. 138. We adhere to the holding in the cases of State ex rel. Lamm v. Spartz, supra, and Clark v. Board of County Commissioners, supra.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 N.W.2d 409, 68 S.D. 622, 1942 S.D. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schamber-v-hutchinson-county-sd-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack