State ex rel. Waitt v. Hill
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1951, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- State Ex Rel. Brenner v. Hodapp (Minn. 1951)
- Kellogg v. Story County (Iowa 1934)
- State v. Crete Mining Co. (Minn. 1925)
- Builders Ltd. Mutual Liability Insurance v. Compensation Insurance Board (Minn. 1922)
- Dexner v. Houghton (Minn. 1922)
- State ex rel. Hathorn v. United States Express Co. (Minn. 1905)
- State ex rel. Diebold Safe & Lock Co. v. Getchell (N.D. 1893)
- Lee v. Mayor & Council (Del. 1895)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Neither from the terms of the amendatory act of' 1883, nor from the nature of the legislation, is it apparent that that act was intended to operate retroactively. It must therefore be construed as having effect only prospectively. State v. Waholz, 28 Minn. 114; Wilson v. Red Wing School-dist., 22 Minn. 488; Giles v. Giles, Id. 348. Therefore the relator was not entitled, as salary for that part-of the official year which preceded the passage of that act, to the increased compensation therein provided. By its terms the act was to take effect and be in force from and after its passage. It became operative at that time, and had the effect to so increase the compensation allowed to aldermen by the previously existing law, that, during the remainder of the official year after the passage of the act, it should be at the rate of $300 a year.
Upon this construction of the statute the city council had no legal authority to direct the drawing of the order which the relator seeks-by this proceeding to compel the comptroller to countersign, nor had the clerk any legal authority to issue such order. The illegality of' the proceedings appears upon the face of the resolution and of the order. The counter-signature of the comptroller is sought for no other purpose than as a means of procuring payment from the city treasury. As that would be without legal authority, the court should not exercise its mandatory power to compel the performance of an act having only that illegal object in view.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.