Secombe v. Kittelson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After tbe decision of the last preceding ease (State v. Young, ante, p. 474,) an extra session of the legislature was called by the governor, at which the act in question in that case was substantially re-enacted, with the omission of the provisions for submission to a tribunal or to the people. Laws 1881, Ex.
Read the full summary
After tbe decision of the last preceding ease (State v. Young, ante, p. 474,) an extra session of the legislature was called by the governor, at which the act in question in that case was substantially re-enacted, with the omission of the provisions for submission to a tribunal or to the people. Laws 1881, Ex. Sess. c. 1. Before the issuance or signature of the new bonds provided for in the act, the plaintiff in this action brought suit to restrain the governor from signing or issuing them, and on November 16, 1881, a writ of injunction was allowed by a court commissioner, and served upon the…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This action was brought to restrain the defendant, as state treasurer, from paying, out of the funds of the state, the interest about to become due upon the bonds of the state of Minnesota, issued under the act of November 4, 1881, in adjustment of the so-called “Minnesota state railroad bonds.” The injunction'is asked upon the ground that the “Minnesota state railroad bonds,” in adjustment of which the bonds about to be paid were issued, were themselves void, and no obligation of the state, because the pretended amendment of April 15, 1858, to section 10, article 9, of the state…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Campbell v. FieldsTexas Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by18 opinions
- Kadderly v. PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- Ellingham v. DyeIndiana Supreme Court · 1912
- State ex rel. Jameson v. DennyIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Gabbert v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Johnson v. CraftSupreme Court of Alabama · 1921
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.