Golden Valley chronicle. (Beach, Billings County, N.D.) 1905-1916, 1908-02-06

has handed down the following decis-
ions in the case against the Minneapo.
lis & Northern Elevator company:
The State of North Dakota, Respond
ent, VS.. Minneapolis & Northern Ell
evator Company, Appellant. (Two
cases, one involving shipment to
Duluth, Mimi. and one shipment
to Anolla, Minn.)
Duluth Case
1. Chapter us of the Laws of 1907.
which is entitled IAN act requiring ell
evator certificates of inspection and
weighmaster's certificate of weight to
the local buyer" and which provides
for the return of such certificates by
the elevator companies, etc. to their
local agents, and also that the latter
shall post the same in conspicuous
place in the elevators, does not contra.
vene section 81 of the state Constitu.
ticn which requires that no bill shall
embrace more than one subject, which
shall be expressed in it's title. The
subject or object of the act is to fur
nish information to the public of the
facts which such official certificates
will impart, and the provisions of Sec
ticn 2, requiring local agents to post
such certificate in their elevators are
sermane to the provisions of sect on 1,
and hence to- the subject embraced in
the title of the act.
2. Such act is not vulnerable to the
objection that it contravenes the pro.
ryici0rc OS h0 i,,%o
clause CT the federal constitution, as
its operation will not directly Or re-
notely interfere with interstate COM
nerce, but its enactment is aslegiti-
nate exercise of the police power of
.ae state.
3. Appellants contention that the
law is void because it attempts to
make acts Or omissions committed in
a foreign state crime in this state,
is not sustained. The conditions on
which foreign corporations are per-
mitted to do business in this state are
within the legitimate power of the
state to prescribe, and defendant cor
poration, having been authorized to
transact business in this state, is,
amenable to its laws enacted under its
police powers to the same extent as
its citizens.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from the district court Of
Cass county; Hon. Charles A. Pollock.
Judge.
T. F. McCue, attorney general: R.
N. Stevens, assistant attorney general;
w. H. Barnett, states attorney; Seth
Richardson, assistant states attorney.
for respondent.
Ball, Watson, Young & Hardy, for
appellant.
Judgment affirmed. Opinion by
Fisk, j. All concur.
(Anoka Case - Same title as Duluth
case.)
Opinion.
Per Curtain. This is a companion
case to State VS.. Minneapolis G North.
ern Elevator Co., just decided bv this
court. The facts differ from that case
only as to the place Of the shipment
and sale of the grain. AS alleg.
ed in the information, the shipment
was made to and the grain sold at
Anoka, in the State of Minnesota, and
that under the law of that state pro-
viding for the official inspection and
weighing of grain no provision is made
for the official inspecting or weighing
Of grain at said place. Following the
construction of chapter 113, Laws of
1907, adopted in the recent case above
referred to, we hold that the facts al.
legged in the information do not state
a public offense under said act. The
Judgment is therefore reversed and