Smith v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Nobles Co.
| Decision Date | 13 December 1887 |
| Citation | 35 N.W. 383,37 Minn. 535 |
| Parties | SMITH v BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF NOBLES CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Chapter 19, Gen. Laws 1873, entitled “An act to encourage the planting and growing of timber and shade trees,” was intended to supersede chapter 30, Gen. Laws 1871, with the same title, and so operate to repeal it.Appeal from district court, Nobles county; PERKINS, Judge.
Daniel Rohrer, for Smith, appellant.
L. M. Lange, for Board of County Com'rs of Nobles Co., respondent.
In 1871 the legislature passed an act (chapter 30) entitled “An act to encourage the planting and growing of timber and shadetrees.” In 1873 it passed another act (chapter 19) with precisely the same title. Each act provided for paying a bounty for the planting and growing of trees. The second act was almost a transcript of the other,-so nearly so as to suggest that it was drawn from the other. The only difference in the substance of the two acts (and the differences in phraseology were only such as the differences in substance required) was that by the first the bounty was to be paid out of the county treasury, and the proofs required to be filed by the claimant with the county auditor were by the latter to be laid before the county commissioners, who were to pass on their sufficiency, and by the second the bounty was to be paid out of the state treasury, and the county auditor was to make and send to the state auditor a certified list of all lands and tree-planting reported and verified to him; and the state auditor was to determine whether the provisions of the act had been complied with; and the second act contained a provision (there being no similar one in the first) that, if the aggregate of the bounties applied for in any one year should exceed the sum of $20,000, then the auditor should distribute $20,000, and no more, pro rata among the claimants. The second act contains no clause repealing the first. But notwithstanding that, and that repeals by implication are not favored, it is pretty clear that the second act was intended to be a substitute for and to supersede the first, and so to be a repeal of it. In each the state gave the bounty. True, in the first, it provided that the bounty for trees planted and grown in any county should be paid out of the treasury of that county; still it was given by the state to carry out a state policy. The county officers had no discretion in the matter.
It would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Winona Motor Co. v. Minnesota Tax Com.
...complete revision of the law brings the statute fairly within our decisions holding to the rule of implied repeal. Smith v. County of Nobles, 37 Minn. 535, 35 N. W. 383; State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. 40 Minn. 353, 42 N. W. 21; Ellington v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 96 Minn. 176, 104 N. W.......
-
State ex rel. Ketcham v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company
...421, and other cases, and are well understood. But we think this case clearly falls within the principles established in Smith v. County of Nobles, 37 Minn. 535, (35 N.W. 383.) We are of the opinion that a, § 3, c. 10, was intended as a substitute for section 1, c. 14, and so far supersedes......
-
State ex rel. Ketchum v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.
...421, and other cases, and are well understood. But we think this case clearly falls within the principles established in Smith v. County of Nobles, 37 Minn. 535,35 N. W. Rep. 383. We are of the opinion that subdivision a, § 3, c. 10, was intended as a substitute for section 1, c. 14, and so......
-
State v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Ry. Co.
...421, and other cases, and are well understood. But we think this case clearly falls within the principles established in Smith v. County of Nobles, 37 Minn. 535, (35 N. W. Rep. 383.) We are of the opinion that subdivision a, § 3, c. 10, was intended as a substitute for section 1, c. 14, and......