Weber v. Timlin

34 N.W. 29, 37 Minn. 274, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 103
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided July 25, 1887·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Gtleillan, C. J.1

The main question in this case — the only one that the parties are particularly interested in having decided — is disposed of in the case of Nichols v. Walter, ante, p. 264, the opinion in which is filed at the same time with this. But although the act of the legislature under which the defendants, as county commissioners, are charged by the complaint with being about to order an election or a removal of the county-seat, is invalid, yet the complaint does not make a case for an injunction, for the statute providing a mode for contesting elections furnishes a full remedy should the election be held. The order will be reversed, without costs.

Order reversed.

Footnotes

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

Weber v. Timlin, 34 N.W. 29, 37 Minn. 274, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 103 (Mich. 1887).

34 N.W. 29 (Weber v. Timlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Repsold v. Independent School District No. 8
285 N.W. 827 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1939)
Ahlquist v. Commonwealth Electric Co.
261 N.W. 452 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1935)
Consolidated School District No. 30 v. Christison
208 N.W. 409 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1926)
Ellingham v. Dye
99 N.E. 1 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1912)
Duggan v. City of Emporia
114 P. 235 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1911)