Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Haggart, Tyler et al v.
Hahn v. Dickinson et al.
Hahn, Dickson et al. v.
Haines et al., Gardner v.
Hall, City of Ft. Pierre v...
Halley et al., Union Nat.

Bank of Omaha v....... Hardy et ux., Thompson et

ux. V...

Hardman v. Kelley.
Harmon v. Goggins et al.
Hartshorn v. Smith et al.
Hazel, Quale v....

Hickson v. Culbert et al.
Hilderbrandt, Weller v.
Hurley v. McCallister et al..
Huston, Sheriff, State ex rel.
Taubman v.

Jackson v. Bailey.
Jackson et al. v. Prior Hill

Min. Co.

Jerome v. Rust..

Jones et al. v. Jones et al... Jones et al. v. Jones et al... Juckett et al., Fargo v. Juckett v. Fall River Co., et al....

Page 497 514 11

Juckett v. Fargo Mercantile Co. et al. . .

108 617

Keith et al., Langmaack v.. Kelley, Hardman v..

358 37

34

405

In re Nelson.

214

Iowa Falls Mig. Co. v. Farrar 632 Iowa Loan and Trust Co. v.

248

559

Schnose et al....
Iowa Nat. Bank of Ottumwa

v. Sherman & Bratager... 238

594

167

373

525

514 663

474

91 608 34

653

483 207

45

381

644

453 263 372 592 150

150

150

351

608

Page

Kelly, Mississippi Lumber &
Coal Co. v....

577

Kennedy et al., Garrigan v.. 11 Kerr, Sheriff v. Murphy et al. 184 King et al., Sanford, City

Mayor et al. v... Kirby v. Martindale.

Klingaman v. Fish & Hunter

Co..

Koehler, Waege v.

Kothe v. Board Sup. of Berlin
Twp....

Moran v. Thomas et al.
Morris v. Reigel...
Morrow et al., Watt v.
Mulhall et al., Blackman et
al. V....

Murphy et al., Kerr, Sheriff,

334

394

Lambert, Co. Treas., et al.,
Moody v.

Langmaack v. Keith et al.
Larson et al. v. Chicago M. &
St. P. Ry Co..
Latham, Clifford v.
Lintner, State v.

Madson et al., Merager v.
Manila Gold Min. & Mil. Co.
et al., Glover v.
Martindale, Kirby v.

559

394

423 381 269

Mathewson v. Fredrich et al. McCallister et al., Hurley v... McCormick, Pfeiffer et al. v. McLennon v. Fenner et al.. 492 McLouth, Bon Homme Co. v. 555 McQuater, Cooke v.

361

128

Meade Co. Bank v. Decker..
Meadows et al v. Osterkamp
et al..

Mears v. Smith et al.
Merager v. Madson et al..
Michel, C. & J., Brewing Co.
v. State et al.
Miller v. Berry et al.
Mineral School Dist. No. 10
v. Pennington Co.
Mississippi Lumber & Coal

Co. v. Kelly....
Moody v. Lambert, Co. Treas.
et al.

V..

Murphy v. Nelson et al.

139

436

427

160

351

284

376

447

400

378 79 400

302 625

602

577

160 469 26

317

534

184

197

Nelson et al. Murphy et al. v. 197 Nelson, In re.. 214

[blocks in formation]

Security Trust Co., Bankers'

Nat. Bank v...
Shelton, Unzelmann v.
Sherman & Bratager, Iowa

418 389

Nat. Bank of Ottumwa v.. Smith, Albien v... Smith, Barron V.. Smith et al., Hartshorn v Smith et al., Mears v. Smith, Nichols v. Smith, Whitford v. Smith, Whitford V.

Page 238

421

ux.

Thomas et al., Moran v..
Thompson, et v. Hardy
et ux.
Troutman v. Eggleston et al.
Tyler et al. v. Haggart . . . . .
Union Nat. Bank of Omaha
v. Halley et al.....
Unzelmann v. Shelton.

50 653

79

159-161 161 158

State et al. v. Coughran et al. 271 State et al., C. & J. Michel Brewing Co. v....

302

State ex rel. Crothers et al.
v. Barber et al. Town of
Hetland Trustees

State ex rel. Taubman v. Hus-
ton, Sheriff ..
State v. Lintner.
State v. Pearse.
State v. Schmidt.
State, Steffen v.
State v. Struble.
State v. Yegge.
State v. Wood.
Steffen v. State.

Stokes et al., Everett v
Struble, State v..
Sundling v. Willey.

1

644 447 75

585

314

646

234

260

314

242

646

293

469

91 572 167

474

389

Waege v. Koehler...
Watt v. Morrow et al. .
Wallace et al.. Goodale v..
Weller v. Hilderbrandt..
Whitney, Germantown Trust
Co. v.
Whitford v. Smith..
Whitford v. Smith.
Will et al., Fowler v.
Willey. Sundling v.

108 158 .-161 131

293

87

Wolven. Battelle, v.
Wood, State v.

260

Work et al. v. Braun et al. . 437 Yegge, State v...

234

Zoellner et al.. Clarke v....
Zurich et al., Glenovich v...

436

317

405

45

159

37

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF THE

State of South Dakota

STATE: ex rel. CROTHERS et al. v. BARBER et al., TOWN OF HET.

LAND TRUSTEES.

1. Laws 1897, p. 214, c. 72, 23, constituting Rev. Pol. Code, § 2856, as

amended by Laws 1903, p. 191, c. 166, relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, provides that the question of granting permits to sell at retail sball be submitted on petition at the annual municipal election held in any township, town, or city, and, if i majority vote in favor thereof, the corporate authorities shall grant permits "for the ensuing year." Held, that this requircd the annual submission of the question, and limited the power to grant permits to the ensuing year after an election favor.

ing the same, unless authorized by an election for the following year. 2. Construing such section thus does not make the law of 1897, p. 203, c. 72,

a prohibition law instead of a license law, and therefore unconstitution

ał because the term “prohibition” is cot used in its title. 3. The law is not unconstitutional as delegating power to local communi

ties to prohibit or authorize such sale, as the law is uniform in its operation throughout the state, applies to all persons, and does not leave the question of prohibition to towns and cities, as it does prohibit the sale unless the conditions are complied with.

(Opinion filed December 21, 1904.)

[ocr errors]

Opinion of the Court-CORSON, P. J.

(19 S. D.

Appeal from circuit court, Kingsbury county; Hon. CHARLES S. WHITING, Judge.

Prohibition by the state,, on the relation of P. R. Crothers and another, against L. W. Barber and others, trustees of the town of Hetland, in Kingsbury county. From a judgment awarding the writ, defendants appeal. , Affirmed.

Taubmand killiamson, for appellants.

Warren & Warren (Aubrey Lawrence, of counsel), for respondents.

CORSON, P. J. This is an appeal from a judgment awarding a writ of prohibition against defendants, as trustees of the incorporated town of Hetland. The facts found by the court, úpon which the writ of prohibition was based, are in substance as follows: That relators were residents, taxpayers and legal voters of the town of Hetland, and that said town was duly incorporated; that the defendants constituted the duly elected, qualified, and acting board of trustees of said town; that appli'cations were made by various persons, in due form of law, for permits to sell intoxicating liquors in said town during the year commencing July 1, 1904, and ending July 30, 1905, which applications were filed with the clerk, and the board of trustees set a day for hearing said applications, and directed notice thereof to be published, which was duly published; that the question of granting permits or of receiving license for the sale of intoxicating liquors was not submitted to the legal vot. ers of said town at the annual municipal election held therein for the

year

1904; that the question of sale of intoxicating liquors

retail
in said

town submitted to the legal voters

,

thereof at the annual

[ocr errors]

at.

was

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »