Sargent County v. State
North Dakota Supreme Court
Erom au order refusing to vacate garnishment proceedings in Sargent Oounty, McKenna,, J., the defendant has appealed. “The industries under consideration in the present ease are all pub-lie industries belonging to tbe state of North Dakota.
Read the full summary
Erom au order refusing to vacate garnishment proceedings in Sargent Oounty, McKenna,, J., the defendant has appealed. “The industries under consideration in the present ease are all pub-lie industries belonging to tbe state of North Dakota. None of them are private industries or enterprises, but, on the contrary, are public enterprises and businesses exclusively owned and wholly operated by the state of North Dakota in its sovereign capacity, for the- use and benefit of all the people of the state, — in other words, for a public purpose.” Green v. Frazier (N. D.) 176 N. W. 20. “There are…
1DissentGrace, J.
(further dissenting). The defendant, the sovereign state of North Dakota, has filed a petition for rehearing, which, unquestionably, should be granted. The importance of the issues involved; the deleterious effects which will inure to the people of this state if the majority opinion becomes final; the failure to give the plain and unmistakable intent of the provisions of the Constitution and laws, mentioned in my previous dissent, to those provisions and laws; the denial to the state of North Dakota of the right to engage in business in its sovereign capacity, though authorized to do so by…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- US Bank v. PLANTERS'BANKSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Green v. FrazierSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. LangerSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- The Lake MonroeSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Briscoe v. President of the Bank of the CommonwealthSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.