State ex rel. Douglas v. Ritt
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Writ of quo warranto issued by the supreme court on the relation of Wallace B. Douglas, attorney general, and Robert H. Seng, requiring respondent to show by what warrant he assumed to act as assessor of Ramsey county, and to hinder and prevent relator Seng from discharging the duties of that office. Laws 1899, c. 140, is unconstitutional because it cannot operate uniformly throughout the state, and the classification is arbitrary and without proper basis.
Read the full summary
Writ of quo warranto issued by the supreme court on the relation of Wallace B. Douglas, attorney general, and Robert H. Seng, requiring respondent to show by what warrant he assumed to act as assessor of Ramsey county, and to hinder and prevent relator Seng from discharging the duties of that office. Laws 1899, c. 140, is unconstitutional because it cannot operate uniformly throughout the state, and the classification is arbitrary and without proper basis. The law is special. The effect and not the form of the law determines its character. Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264; Com. v. Patton, 88…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This is a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto to determine the right to the office of assessor of Ramsey county. The relator Seng claims it by virtue of an appointment under the special laws set up in the information, and particularly Sp. Laws 1875, c. 90. The respondent, Ritt, claims it by virtue of an appointment under Laws 1899, c. 140. It is conceded that, if the act of 1899 is valid, Ritt is entitled to the office, but, on the other hand, if that act is invalid, Seng is entitled to it. Hence the only question presented is Whether that act is constitutional.
Its validity is assailed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Nichols v. WalterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- State ex rel. Board of Courthouse & City Hall Com'rs v. CooleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Burnham v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- State ex rel. Anderson v. SullivanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Wanser v. HoosSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1897
3Cited by29 opinions
- State ex rel. Douglas v. WestfallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- State ex rel. Board of Education v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Simpson v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Murray v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Mulloy v. Wayne County Board of SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.