Burns v. Sewell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs, "William "H. Burns and Willis B. Shaw, from an order of the district court of Ramsey county, Kelly, J., made September 19, 1891, refusing a new trial. The defendant Thomas Tyrer was the owner of a lot in West St. Paul, and on April 21, 1890, made a contract with defendant Charles B. Lawton regarding it, whereby Lawton agreed to construct a dwelling house thereon.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiffs, "William "H. Burns and Willis B. Shaw, from an order of the district court of Ramsey county, Kelly, J., made September 19, 1891, refusing a new trial. The defendant Thomas Tyrer was the owner of a lot in West St. Paul, and on April 21, 1890, made a contract with defendant Charles B. Lawton regarding it, whereby Lawton agreed to construct a dwelling house thereon. Lawton made a contract May 1, 1890, with the defendant George Sewell, to furnish the lumber and material and do the carpenter work. Sewell purchased the lumber from plaintiffs, and ordered it from time to time…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
Action to enforce a mechanic’s lien under Laws 1889, ch. 200. The' appellants object that, under the constitutional provisions with respect to the passage and approval of bills, *429that chapter did not become a law. It originated in and passed the house, and going to the senate was amended and passed, and returned to the house, where, as amended, it was passed April 19th. April 22d it was reported enrolled,1 and sent to the governor. April 23d the legislature adjourned. April 24th the governor approved it. The objection is that, the bill not having passed during the last three days of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- The People v. . BowenNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Howes v. Reliance Wire-Works Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- People v. BowenNew York Supreme Court · 1859
- Seven Hickory v. EllerySupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Hickey v. CollomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Richmond & I. Const. Co. v. Richmond, N., I. & B. R.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895
- Lamoreaux v. AnderschSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Wentworth v. TubbsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Giant Portland Cement Co. v. . StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Red Wing Sewer Pipe Co. v. DonnellySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.