From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Apr 23, 1937
198 Minn. 620 (Minn. 1937)

Summary

perceiving no conflict between a statute making it unlawful for licensee to sell alcohol to minors "'knowing them to be such'" and local ordinance providing that "'[n]o person shall, within the city,' sell any alcoholic liquors to minors"

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. City of Alma v. Furnas Cty. Farms

Opinion

No. 31,407.

April 23, 1937.

Defendant appealed from a judgment of the district court for St. Louis county, Edwin J. Kenny, Judge, in favor of the State. Affirmed, following State v. Penn Mut. L. Ins. Co. 198 Minn. 115, 269 N.W. 37.

James E. Gardner and Fryberger, Fulton Boyle, for appellant.

Thomas J. Naylor, County Attorney, for the State.



Appeal from a judgment. The case was here before on appeal from the order denying a new trial, and our opinion was filed September 25, 1936. 198 Minn. 115, 269 N.W. 37.

For the reasons given in said opinion and upon authority thereof, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Apr 23, 1937
198 Minn. 620 (Minn. 1937)

perceiving no conflict between a statute making it unlawful for licensee to sell alcohol to minors "'knowing them to be such'" and local ordinance providing that "'[n]o person shall, within the city,' sell any alcoholic liquors to minors"

Summary of this case from State ex Rel. City of Alma v. Furnas Cty. Farms
Case details for

State v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. PENN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Apr 23, 1937

Citations

198 Minn. 620 (Minn. 1937)
272 N.W. 547

Citing Cases

Genevieve v. Genevieve

Inconsistent does not mean mere lack of uniformity in detail. Bodkin v. State, 132 Neb. 535, 272 N.W. 547…

Weden v. San Juan County

Brown, 116 Wn.2d at 561; accord Schampera, 57 Wn.2d at 111 ("Unless legislative provisions are contradictory…