Village of Wykoff v. Healey
Supreme Court of Minnesota
James Healy, Jr. was convicted before the Village Justice of the Village of Wykoff, of being intoxicated on a public street of that village, contrary to an ordinance. He appealed on questions of law alone to the District Court of Fillmore County, John Why took, J., where the conviction was affirmed.
Read the full summary
James Healy, Jr. was convicted before the Village Justice of the Village of Wykoff, of being intoxicated on a public street of that village, contrary to an ordinance. He appealed on questions of law alone to the District Court of Fillmore County, John Why took, J., where the conviction was affirmed. Upon Healy’s request the Judge reported the case so far as was necessary to present the question involved and certified the report to this court under 1878, G-. S. ch. 117, § 11. He claimed the ordinance under which he was convicted to be void because the penalty provided is in excess of the…
1Opinion of the CourtGtlfillan, C. J.
No question is made against the validity of section 1 of the ordinance, standing alone; the only claim of defendant being that section 2 makes the entire ordinance void. Conceding *17(though we do not decide the point) that section 2, if it must he retained, would render void the otherwise valid part of the ordinance, the question is, can that section be rejected, leaving the unobjectionable parts of the ordinance to stand? That part of a statute may stand though some other part be void is well settled. The condition upon which the void part will carry down with it the parts otherwise…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Steele v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
3Cited by2 opinions
- Steele v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- City of Rochester v. BemelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930