State Ex Rel. County of Morrison v. Armson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State Ex Rel. County of Morrison v. Armson

216 N.W. 240, 172 Minn. 605, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1343

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 18, 1927

DocketNo. 26,129.

StatusPublished

This text of 216 N.W. 240 (State Ex Rel. County of Morrison v. Armson) 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

State Ex Rel. County of Morrison v. Armson, 216 N.W. 240, 172 Minn. 605, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1343 (Mich. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The relators seek by certiorari to review the action of the tax commission in reducing the assessed value of a hydroelectric plant owned by the Minnesota Power & Light Company and situated in the towns of Bellevue and Swan River in Morrison county. No testimony was taken by the commission. There is said to have been an informal discussion, of which no record was kept. The result was the order under review which, together with a report of an engineer concerning the reproduction cost of the plant, are the only things properly before us. Dismissal of the writ is sought because it was not applied for or served in time and also because the relators are not entitled to the writ for lack of interest in the subject matter. Those points we pass, for it is clear that in the state of the record just referred to, there being nothing at all upon which we could reverse, the writ must be discharged.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

The relators seek by certiorari to review the action of the tax commission in reducing the assessed value of a hydroelectric plant owned by the Minnesota Power & Light Company and situated in the towns of Bellevue and Swan River in Morrison county. No testimony was taken by the commission. There is said to have been an informal discussion, of which no record was kept. The result was the order under review which, together with a report of an engineer concerning the reproduction cost of the plant, are the only things properly before us. Dismissal of the writ is sought because it was not applied for or served in time and also because the relators are not entitled to the writ for lack of interest in the subject matter. Those points we pass, for it is clear that in the state of the record just referred to, there being nothing at all upon which we could reverse, the writ must be discharged.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 N.W. 240, 172 Minn. 605, 1927 Minn. LEXIS 1343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-county-of-morrison-v-armson-minn-1927.