Sargent County v. State
North Dakota Supreme Court
Erom au order refusing to vacate garnishment proceedings in Sargent Oounty, McKenna,, J., the defendant has appealed. “The industries under consideration in the present ease are all pub-lie industries belonging to tbe state of North Dakota.
Read the full summary
Erom au order refusing to vacate garnishment proceedings in Sargent Oounty, McKenna,, J., the defendant has appealed. “The industries under consideration in the present ease are all pub-lie industries belonging to tbe state of North Dakota. None of them are private industries or enterprises, but, on the contrary, are public enterprises and businesses exclusively owned and wholly operated by the state of North Dakota in its sovereign capacity, for the- use and benefit of all the people of the state, — in other words, for a public purpose.” Green v. Frazier (N. D.) 176 N. W. 20. “There are…
1Opinion
On Petition for- Behearing, Piled April 4, 1921.
Birdzell, J.
The petition for rehearing states six distinct grounds in support of the motion. The first is that the decision is contrary to law. In support of this contention the following assertions are made: (a) That the decision is not in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the state of North Dakota; (b) that it is judicial legislation in that it amends an act of the legislature which had been referred to the people and approved by them; (c) that it annuls the constitutional provision which authorizes the state in its sovereign…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pacific National Bank v. MixterSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Van Reed v. People's National Bank of LebanonSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Earle v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Anderson v. International School District No. 5North Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Safford v. First National BankSupreme Court of Vermont · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.