Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Farrar v. Hipple

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 13, 1895PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Separate original actions for mandamus. The two cases were consolidated for trial. Judgment for plaintiffs. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtKellam, J.

These were Original applications to this court for writs of mandamus requiring defendant, as state auditor, to issue warrants in favor of the relator plaintiffs, respectivily, as city treasurer of their several cities as above named, for the amounts to which such treasurers claim to be entitled for the use of the fire departments of said cities under the provisions of chapter 58, Laws 1887. The cases being alike, they will be disposed' of in one opinion.

Whithout prefatory detail it is sufficient to say that in Cutting v. Taylor, 3 S. D. 11, 51 N. W. 949, the legal effect of this law was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cutting v. TaylorSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Toomey v. State Board of ExaminersMontana Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Lyman County v. StateSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896

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

Powered by the Exa API