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…
1OpinionBronson, J.
The defendant has -filed a petition for rehearing, wherein it is contended again that the Bank of North Dakota is the state, and as such is not subject to garnishment, and, further, that this-court judicially legislated in holding to the contrary. The petition presents no legal issues that have not been fully considered by the court. It presents no legal determinative issues other than those considered and determined by the majority opinion. It reasserts many of the contentions made by Justice Grace in his dissenting opinion. Both the petition and the dissenting opinion, therefore, merit…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State ex rel. Linde v. TaylorNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1916
- United States v. StrangSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Ruddy v. RossiSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- State ex rel. Frich v. Stark CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1905
- Park, Grant, & Morris v. NordaleNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1918
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.