State ex rel. Arosin v. Ehrmantraut
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Quo warranto on the relation of O. H. Arosin and Edward H. Milham against Joseph Ehrmantraut and Eobert N. Hare. Eespondents filed an answer, to which relators demurred on the ground that the facts stated did not constitute a defense. Judgment of ouster.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
It was determined in State v. Johnstone, 61 Minn. 562, 63 N. W. 176, that such portion of the charter of the city of St. Paul as created the office and provided for the election annually of a president of the city council was repealed by implication on the passage of the amendatory act (Sp. Laws 1891, c. 6), and that by this amendment the office was abolished. In view of that decision, the respondents herein are not entitled to sit as members of the body *105created and provided for by Sp. Laws 1889, c. 64, an act amendatory of Sp. Laws, 1881, c. 376, known as the “Courthouse and City Hall…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Morton v. PowerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- State ex rel. Grode v. JohnstoneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
3Cited by4 opinions
- City of St. Petersburg v. EnglishSupreme Court of Florida · 1907
- State ex rel. City of Shawano v. EngelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1920
- Beattie v. City CouncilSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1920
- Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co. v. Railroad CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1913