Case Name: STATE ex rel. GEORGE T. SIMPSON v. VILLAGE OF ALICE and Others
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1911-04-21
Citations: 114 Minn. 195
Docket Number: Nos. 16,734 — (21)
Parties: STATE ex rel. GEORGE T. SIMPSON v. VILLAGE OF ALICE and Others.
Judges: Lewis, L, I dissent.
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
STATE ex rel. GEORGE T. SIMPSON v. VILLAGE OF ALICE and Others.
April 21, 1911.
Nos. 16,734 — (21).
Incorporation of village — former decision followed.
Bald, following a former decision on a demurrer to respondents’ answer, that the facts disclosed by the record do not justify the conclusion, as a matter of law, that the village of Alice was improperly incorporated.
After the decision upon the former appeal, 112 Minn. 330, 127 N. W. 1128, the question was submitted to the court for its determination upon the pleadings and stipulated facts.
Writ discharged.
George T. Simpson, Attorney General, and Washburn, Bailey & Mitchell, for relator.
Samuel G. Scott and Victor L. Power, for respondents.
Reported in 130 N. W. 948.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This proceeding, quo warranto to dissolve the incorporated village of Alice, came before us at the last term upon relator's demurrer to respondents' answer. State v. Village of Alice, 112 Minn. 330, 127 N. W. 1118. We were then of opinion, and so ruled, that on the facts disclosed it could not well be held as a matter of law that the village boundaries included improper territory, or that the incorporation thereof was invalid. The demurrer was accordingly overruled.
The cause is again before us upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of the facts. A careful consideration of the facts as set out in the stipulation presents nothing substantially or materially different from those set ont in the respondents' answer, and we follow and apply the- former decision, holding that the facts do not justify the conclusion as a matter of law that the village was improperly incorporated. Nothing can be added to the former opinion, and, for the reasons therein given, the writ is quashed and proceedings dismissed. This conclusion is also sustained by the recent case of State v. Village of Dover, 113 Minn. 452, 130 N. W. 74.
Writ discharged.
Lewis, L, I dissent.