State ex rel. Watson v. Reed
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 1947, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- Willoughby v. Utecht (Minn. 1947)
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
On September 25, 1918, relator was convicted in the district court of Hennepin county of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree. On September 26 the following sentence was imposed:
“It is considered and adjudged that you William Watson, as punishment for the crime of grand larceny in the second degree of which you have been convicted in this cause be. confined at hard labor in the state prison -at Stillwater, Minnesota, for the term of two years or until you*150 «ball have been tbence discharged by due course of law or by competent authority.”
Eelator now claims to have served this sentence, and he procured from the district court a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release. The district court ordered the writ discharged. Eelator appeals.
The statute under which relator was sentenced, permits the court, in passing sentence, to fix the maximum term of imprisonment, but does not permit the fixing of a definite term or a minimum term. Chapter 319, p. 455, Laws 1917.
We construe the sentence as a sentence for a maximum term of two years, and not as a sentence for a fixed term or a minimum term of two years. The court without doubt was familiar with the statute and intended a valid sentence, one which the statute authorized, not one which the statute forbade.
On the day of his sentence relator was committed to the state prison. Because of good behavior, he has diminished the term of imprisonment to such an extent that he is now entitled to discharge. The order of the trial court is reversed and the relator discharged from custody.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.