John V. Farwell Co. v. Matheis
| Decision Date | 10 December 1891 |
| Citation | 48 F. 363 |
| Parties | JOHN V. FARWELL CO. v. MATHEIS et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Edward P. Sanborn, for garnishee.
Howard L. Smith and Lusk, Bunn & Hadley, opposed.
The defendant, Matheis, made an assignment under the insolvent laws of the state of Minnesota to Theodore Draz, assignee. The plaintiff seeks to reach by garnishment proceedings the property held under the assignment; and the assignee, setting up the facts of the assignment, and the possession of the property, and presenting the deed thereof, asks to be discharged. It is claimed that the deed of assignment is void for the reason, among others, that chapter 30, Laws Minn. 1889, authorizing a statutory assignment, never became a law, and ought not to be in the statute book. It appears from the official records that chapter 30 was house file 1,318, and that after having passed the house it was received in the senate and passed Saturday April 20, 1889. The legislature adjourned April 23d, Tuesday and the same day the governor indorsed upon the bill the words, 'Approved April 23, 1889,' and filed it with the secretary of state. April 25th, two days after the adjournment of the legislature. The last clause of section 11, art. 4, of the constitution of the state of Minnesota declares that 'the governor may approve, sign, and file in the office of the secretary of state, within three days after the adjournment of the legislature, any act passed during the last three days of the session, and the same shall become a law. ' This act did become a law unless Sunday is counted as one of the three days of the session, within the meaning of this provision of section 11, art. 4.
The correct construction of this clause depends upon the definition of the word 'session' as therein used. The prime definition of this word, when applied to a legislative body, is the actual sitting of the members of such body for the transaction of business. It also may be used to denote the term during which the legislature meet daily for business, and also the space of time between the first meeting and the adjournment. The context affords the light for determining the meaning of the word 'session' when used in the constitution. In section 19, art. 4, the meaning of the word 'sessions' is manifest: 'Each house shall be open to the public during the sessions thereof, except in such cases as in their opinion may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruce v. Pope
... ... time. Stinson v. Smith, 8 Minn. 366; People v ... Hatch, 33 Ill. 9, 149; Farwell Co. v. Matheis, ... 48 F. 363 ... We ... think the intent was to give three ... ...
-
State v. Holm
...duty which he was expressly given in the first — both calling for substantially and practically an identical service. In John V. Farwell Co. v. Matheis (C.C.) 48 F. 363, the court had under consideration the same language as in the Stinson Case, and said, "The `last three days of the sessio......
-
State ex rel. Putnam v. Holm
...expressly given in the first-both calling for substantially and practically an identical service. In John V. Farwell Co. v. Matheis (C. C.) 48 F. 363, the court had under consideration the same language as in the Stinson Case, and said, ‘The ‘last three days of the session’' means working d......
-
State ex rel. Putnam v. Holm
...which he was expressly given in the first -- both calling for substantially and practically an identical service. In John V. Farwell Co. v. Martheis (C.C.) 48 F. 363, court had under consideration the same language as in the Stinson case, and said "the last three days of the session" means ......