The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1918-07-04

ENTIRE HERALD.
whatever upon the judgment, until it
gets into the supreme court and is
decided by the supreme court.
The term Of the supreme court
commenced the first part Of April, and
Of course it was too late to get the
case into this term of court. The
next term begins the fore part of
October and it is the intention to have
everything perfected and get it into
the October term of court.
Now, whether the notice of appeal
had been served on the date that the
judgment was rendered, or the next
day, or on the last day Of the six
months would cut no figure so far as
the power of the council to grant a
license is concerned, as our statute
makes no provision of a stay in mat
tiers of this kind. For authority on
this point cite you the case of John
d. Allen VS.. George w. Robinson, re-
ported in the II MINI. on page 113
(Gil.) 90, which was the case of an
election contest for the office of Reg
lister of Deeds in Mower county, Min
nesota., In that case the petitioner
had been declared elected by the can
wasting board, and received his certi-
fcate of election. The respondent gave
notice of contest and trial was had
in the District Court, and judgment
was entered on the 31st day of De-
cember, 1870 reversing the decision OF
the Board of Canvassers, and declared
the certificate null and void, and that
the responent was duly elected to that
office on the End day of January,
1871. The respondent, who had been
declared by the District Court to be
elected, took the oath of office and
qualified on the 3rd of January, 1871.
On the next day the petitioner gave
notice of appeal to the Supreme court
and filed a bond of 100000. The
petitioner commenced mandamus pro"
ceedings to GUST the respondent from
the office, claiming that he held his
certificate and that he had appealed
to the supreme court and, therefore,
the Judgment of the District court was
stayed. The question was, who was
entitled to possession of office dur
ing the tendency of the appeal. The
supreme court say:
"The respondents right, whatever
they may be, accrue upon the rendition
of the Judgment and the Judgment
must be rendered before an appeal can
be taken, though it be but the moment
before"
The Supreme Court further say:
9Th eholder of the certificate has the
prima facie title pending the appeal
to the district court. The holder OF
that Judgment has, at least, the prin1a
facie title pending the appeal to this
court. Z
emo other result can possibly be
reached without giving to an appe
the effect, not only of stay OF pro-
ceedings upon the Judgment, but OF
a suspension of the judgnae-+ itself
for the time being, so that pending
the appeal there would be no judgment
of the district court declaring respond
emit duly elected, leaving thereby as
the only decision in force that of the
county board declaring petitioner duly
elected, in which case his appeal does
for him while it is pending, all that
the judgment of the reversal, which is
it's object to procure, could effect"
Read this decision carefully and you
will find that it sustains my conten-
ton as above set forth and there
seems to be no other case in our SUI
preme court upon this particular
point. Our statute makes no provision
for a stay in cases Of this kind the
same asst does from an appeal from
certain orders and from money judg-
ments.
If it is the intention of the counsel
to appeal, you better come up and we
will look over the case together, get
it ready and serve it so as to have
everything in the supreme court in the
October term. The case as now re-
ported is not, in proper shape, and viii
require considerable work.
Respectfully yours,
C. J. Gunderson.
y =