Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wakely v. County of St. Louis

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 7, 1931No. 28,404Published

1Dissent

I dissent. It is elementary that persons dealing with an involuntary public corporation which exercises governmental functions, such as a county, are bound to know the legal limitations on its methods of doing business, Sandeen v. County of Ramsey,109 Minn. 505, 508, 124 N.W. 243; that the management of a county's business is vested in the county board acting as a board; that individual members of that body acting independently have no authority to bind the county, Gardner v. Bd. of Co. Commrs. of Dakota County, 21 Minn. 33; State ex rel. Erb v. Johnson, 98 Minn. 17, 107 N.W. 404; and that an…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. First National Bank v. Village of GoodhueSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
  2. Agawam National Bank v. Inhabitants of South HadleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
  3. Fargo Foundry Co. v. Village of CallawaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
  4. Laird Norton Yards v. City of RochesterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
  5. Worrell Manufacturing Co. v. City of AshlandCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API