Legal Opinion

Streissguth v. Geib

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 2, 1897No. Nos. 10,234—(226)PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Sibley county, Cadwell, J., denying a motion to dissolve an injunction.

1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.

In December, 1895, pursuant to Laws 1889, c. 174,2 a petition (in due form and signed by tbe required number of legal voters) for the change of tbe county seat of Sibley county to tbe village of Arlington was presented to and filed with tbe county auditor. When tbe board of county commissioners met, in January, 1896, to act on this petition, as provided by section 2 of tbe statute referred to,3 they erroneously and unlawfully struck off tbe names of 144 persons, which left less than tbe required number of signers on tbe petition. In mandamus proceedings against tbe board judgment was…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Streissguth v. GeibSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
  2. Todd v. RustadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dennis v. PratherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
  2. Marbut v. HollingsheadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
  3. Gile v. StegnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
  4. Consolidated School District No. 30 v. ChristisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  5. Moore v. MayerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API