Anderson v. City of Le Sueur
Supreme Court of Minnesota
John Anderson gave notice of contest and appealed to the district court for Le Sueur county from the canvass of votes cast at the annual election of the city of Le Sueur held on April 1, 1911, and the decision of the common council of that city that 225 votes were cast thereat in favor of, and 212 votes were cast thereat against, granting license for the sale of intoxicating liquor in that city.
Read the full summary
John Anderson gave notice of contest and appealed to the district court for Le Sueur county from the canvass of votes cast at the annual election of the city of Le Sueur held on April 1, 1911, and the decision of the common council of that city that 225 votes were cast thereat in favor of, and 212 votes were cast thereat against, granting license for the sale of intoxicating liquor in that city. The court appointed referees to inspect the ballots, and the appeal was thereafter heard by Morrison,-J., who made findings and dismissed the proceedings. Erom the judgment entered pursuant to the…
1DissentBrown, C. J.
The statutes referred to in the opinion are in pari materia, they all relate to the same subject matter, are included in the chapter relating to intoxicating liquors (G. S. 1913, c. 16), and should be construed together for the purpose of gathering the general intent of the legislature. The rule controlling the construction of such statutes is well stated by Mr. Justice Wayne in U. S. v. Freeman, 3 How. (H. S.) 556, 11 L. ed. 724, as follows:
“The correct rule of interpretation is, that if divers statutes relate to the same thing, they ought all to be taken into consideration •in construing…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State ex rel. Peacock v. Village Council of OsakisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Lodoen v. City CouncilSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- Thune v. HetlandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- McLaughlin v. Village of Rush CitySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913