Gambar halaman


Page Gardiner v. Ross et al.


Kelly, Mississippi Lumber & Gardner v. Haines et al. 514 Coal Co. v.

577 Garrigan v. Kennedy et al.. 11 Kennedy et al., Garrigan v.. 11 Germantown Trust Co.

Kerr, Sheriff v. Murphy et al. 184 Whitney

108 King et al., Sanford, City Gibson v. Allen.

Mayor et al. V..

334 Gladiator Con. Gold Min. & Kirby v. Martindale.

394 Mil. Co, Collins v.


Klingaman v. Fish & Hunter Clenovich v. Zurich.


139 Goggins et al., Harmon v. 34 Koehler, Waege v.

436 Goodale v. Wallace et al. 405 Kothe v. Board Sup. of Berlin Glover v. Manila Gold Min &


427 Mil. Co. et al.

Lambert, Co. Treas., et al.,

160 Haggart, Tyler et al v.

Moody v. 167

351 Hahn v. Dickinson et al. 373

Langmaack v. Keith et al. Hahn, Dickson et al. .


Larson et al. v. Chicago M. &

514 Haines et al., Gardner v.

284 St. P. Ry Co..

376 Hall, City of Ft. Pierre v.

Latham, Clifford v. 663

447 Halley

Lintner, State v..
et al.,
Union Wat.

474 Bank of Omaha V...

400 Madson et al., Merager v..

Manila Gold Min. & Mil. Co. Hardy et ux., Thompson et

559 et al., Glover v..

91 IIX. V.... Hardman v. Kelley.


Martindale, Kirby v. Harmon v. Goggins et al. 34

Niathewson v. Fredrich et al. 423

653 Hartshorn v. Smith et al

McCallister et al., Hurley v... 381 Hazel, Quale v.

McCormick, Pfeiffer et al. v. 269

492 Hickson v. Culbert et al.

McLennon v. Fenner et al...

207 Hilderbrandt, Weller v.

McLouth, Bon Homme Co. v. 555

361 Hurley v. McCallister et al.

McQuater, Cooke v... 381

Meade Co. Bank V. Decker.. 128
Huston, Sheriff, State ex rel.
Taubman V...::

644 Meadows et al v. Osterkamp
et al...

378 Mears V. Smith et al.,

79 In re Nelson ..


Morager v. Madson et al. 400 Iowa Falls Mig. Co. v. Farrar 632

Michel, C. & J., Brewing Co. Iowa Loan and Trust Co. v.

V. State et al....

302 Schnose et al ..

2 48
Miller v. Berry et al.

625 Iowa Nat. Bank of Ottumwa

Mineral School Dist. No. 10 V. Sherman & Bratager... 2:38

v. Pennington Co..

Mississippi Lumber & Coal
Jackson v. Bailey.

Co. v. Kelly.

577 Jackson et al. v. Prior Hill

Moody V. Lambert, Co. Treas. Min. Co..

et al..

160 Jerome v. Rust.

Moran V. Thomas et al.

469 Jones et al. v. Jones et al. 372

Morris v. Reigel..
Jones et al. v. Jones et al.

Morrow et al., Watt v.

317 Juckett et al., Fargo v.

Julhall et al., Blackman et Juckett v. Fall River ('o., et

al. V..

534 al.,

Murphy et al., Kerr, Sheriff, Juckett v. Fargo Mercantile

184 Co. et al.,


Murphy v. Nelson et al. 197 Keith et al., Langmaack v.. 351 Nelson et al. Murphy et al. v. 197 Kelley, Hardman v. 608 Nelson, In re.






[blocks in formation]


Pearse, State y.,
Pearsons V. Peters et al... 162
Pennington County, Mineral

School Dist. No. 10 v.... 602 Perkins, Com. of Ins., Phoenix Ins. Co. v.

59 Peterson et al. v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co....

122 Peters et al., Pearsons v. 162 Petty, Sheriff, et al., Odell v. 332 Pfeiffer et al., McCormick v. 269 Phoenix Ins. Co. et

al., V. Perkins, Com. of Ins..

59 Pribble v. Bromley et al. 90 Prior Hill Min. Co., Jackson et al.

453 Pringle v. Canfield, Sheriff .. 506

Page Nat. Bank of Ottumwa v.. 238 Smith, Albien v.

421 Smith, Barron v.

50 Smith et al., Hartshorn v. 653 Smith ct al., Mears V

79 Smith, Nichols v.

159-161 Smith, Whitford v.

161 Smith, Whitford

158 State ct 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

1 State ex rel. Taubman v. Huston, Sheriff

644 State v. Lintner.

447 State V. Pearse. State v. Schmidt.

585 State, Steffen v.

314 State v. Struble.

646 State v. Yegge.

234 State v. Wood.

260 Steffen v. State.

314 Stokes et al., Everett v

2 42 Struble, State v.

646 Sundling y. Willey,



[blocks in formation]

Thomas et al., Moran v..... 469 Thompson, et ux. v. Hardy et ux.

91 Troutman v. Eggleston et al. 572 Tyler et al. v. Haggart... 167 Union Nat. Bank of Omaha V. Halley et al. ...

474 Unzelmann V. Shelton.


Reigel, Morris v.
Richards Trust Co. v. Rhom-

berg Rhomberg, Richards Trust

Co. v.
Rochford v. School Dist. No.

6, Lyman Co. et al.,
Ross et al., Gardiner v.
Ross, Gardiner v.
Rust, Jerome v.


435 497



Sanford, City Mayor et al v.
King et al...

334 Schaefer v. Cremer.

656 Schleuning et al., Bishop & Babcock Co., V.

367 School Dist. No. 6, Lyman Co.

et al., Rochford v..... 433 Schmidt, State V..

583 Schnose et al., Iowa Loan & Trust Co. y.

248 Security Trust Co., Bankers' Vat. Bank V...

418 Shelton, Unzelmann v

389 Sherman & Bratager, Iowa

Waege v. Koehler...

436 Watt v. Morrow et al.

317 Wallace et al., Goodale v

Weller v. Hilderbrandt.
Whitney, Germantown Trust
Co. v.

108 Whitford V. Smith.

158 Whitford v. Smith.

161 Will et al., Fowler v

131 Willey, Sundling v.

293 N'olven. Battelle, v.

87 Wood, State v...

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

234 Zoellner et al.. Clarke v....

159 Zurich et al., Glenovich v... 37





State of South Dakota

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


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 thę writ, defendants appeal. , Affirmed.

l'auüman de Williamson, 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, upon 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


1904; that the question of sale of intoxicating liquors

retail in said, town submitted to the legal voters thereof at the annual



« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »