State ex rel. Young v. Brill
| Decision Date | 01 April 1907 |
| Docket Number | 15,099 - (208) |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. EDWARD T. YOUNG v. HASCAL R. BRILL and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Rehearing of April 12, 1907, Reported at 100 Minn. 499 at 500.
Order from the supreme court upon relation of Edward T. Young attorney general, requiring Hascal R. Brill, William Louis Kelly, Olin B. Lewis, George L. Bunn, Grier Orr and Oscar Hallam, as judges of the Second judicial district of the state of Minnesota, to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not be issued commanding them to appoint a member of the board of control of Ramsey county. Respondents' motion to quash the information, to discharge the order and to dismiss the proceedings granted.
Act Unconstitutional.
Sp. Laws 1883, p. 189, c. 51, in so far as it requires the judges of the district court of Ramsey county to appoint the members of the board of control of such county, is unconstitutional, because imposing on the judiciary duties belonging to another department of the government.
April 12, 1907.
Nonjudicial Function.
Chapters 51 and 54, pp. 189, 192, Sp. Laws 1883, in so far as they require the judges of the district court, or a majority of them, to appoint the members of the board of control of the county of Ramsey, are unconstitutional, because they assume to impose upon members of the judicial department powers and functions which are by the constitution of the state assigned to another department of the government.
Edward T. Young, Attorney General, C. S. Jelley, Assistant Attorney General, and Durment & Moore, for relator.
Charles E. Otis and W. H. Lightner, for respondents.
On April 1, 1907, the following opinion was filed: was filed:
The relator, the attorney general of the state, applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the judges of the district court of the Second judicial district of the state to appoint a member of the board of control of Ramsey county, as provided by Sp. Laws 1883, p. 189, c. 51. An order to show cause why the writ should not issue was made, and upon the return the respondents appeared and moved to discharge the order and dismiss the proceedings upon the ground that the statute which assumed to impose the duty of making such appointment is unconstitutional and void, because it imposes upon the judiciary duties and functions which are not judicial and which belong to another...
To continue reading
Request your trial