Legal Opinion

Rundlett v. City of St. Paul

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 23, 1896No. Nos. 9855-(141)PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., sustaining a demurrer to the answer.

1Opinion of the Court

START, O. J.

This is an action for the recovery of the salary of the plaintiff, as city engineer of the defendant, for the month of July, 1895, at the rate of $5,000 per annum, as fixed by Sp. Laws 1891, c. 9. The answer alleges that the common council of the city of St. Paul, on June 6, 1895, by resolution, duly fixed the; .salary of the city engineer from and after July 1, 1895, at $3,500 per annum. The plaintiff demurred to this answer, and from an order sustaining the demurrer the defendant appealed.

The record presents only one question for our decision. Did the common council of the city…

2Cited by5 opinions

State ex rel. Maryland Casualty Co. v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
Be Boest v. GambellOregon Supreme Court · 1899
State ex rel. Donovan v. Duluth Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
Bull v. KingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
State ex rel. Patterson Street Lighting Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906