Sharp v. Merrill

Decided October 18, 1889

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1889-10-18

Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Ramsey county, alleging his ownership in fee of certain described land in that county, and “that the defendant claims some title or interest in said land, and lien upon the same, adversely to the plaintiff, by and through certain pretended tax certificates and tax-deeds, all of which, together with the several pretended tax judgments under which the same were made, are void.” Judgment is asked that plaintiff’s title be…

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“* * * An omission of words from the enrolled bill, which does not change the substance or legal effect of the statute as it passed the legislature, is wholly immaterial.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State Ex Rel. Foster v. Naftalin

Relies on Stein v. Leeper · People ex rel. Gale v. Supervisor of Onondaga · Smith v. Hoyt

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-10-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1963

5 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mitchell, J.

¶1Assuming that a court would take judicial notice of the fact that the words “such claims of such,” included in brackets in the official publication of Laws 1887, c. 127, are contained in the engrossed bill which passed the legislature, but are omitted from the enrolled bill which was signed by the governor, we are clear that the omission is immaterial, and changes neither the substance nor legal effect of the statute. Whether these words be inserted or omitted, the effect gf the act would be the same. In either case the plain meaning of the statute would be to limit its application to claims of title, interest, or lien, by or through tax certificates or tax-deeds. An omission of words from the enrolled bill, which does not change the substance or legal effect of the statute as it passed the legislature, is wholly immaterial. Stein v. Leeper, 78 Ala. 517; People v. Supervisors, 16 Mich. 254; Smith v. Hoyt, 14 Wis. 252.

¶2Order affirmed.