Cited by

Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445, 448 , .

It is just as well settled that a valid classification may be based upon *530 existing circumstances and limited to members of a class existing at the time of its enactment when the purpose is remedial and to meet a temporary situation.” In Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , , it is said: “The rule is well settled that classification with a view to the enactment of general laws must not be based upon existing circumstances only or those of limited duration, except where the object of th

v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , ; Kaiser v. Campbell, 90 Minn. 375 , ; Farwell v. City of Minneapolis, 105 Minn. 178 , ; Wall v. County of St.

327; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , ; State ex rel.

v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 552 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , ; Roe v. City of Duluth, 153 Minn. 68 , ; also cases previously cited.

Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , , involving the issuance of bonds to fund a floating indebtedness, is illustrative.

of Ed. v. Brown, 97 Minn. 402 , , 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 327; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , .

Such exceptions are exemplified in State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , ; State v. Brown, 97 Minn. 402 , , 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 327; Wall v. County of St.

Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , ; *185 State v. Ames, 87 Minn. 23 , ; Le Tourneau v. Hugo, 90 Minn. 420 , ; State v. Justus, 90 Minn. 474 , ; State v. Schraps, 97 Minn. 62 , ; State v. Brown, 97 Minn. 402 , , 5 L.R.A.(N.S.)

& 1916 Supp. § 1683; State v. Village of Gilbert, 127 Minn. 452 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , .

Nichols v. Walter, 37 Minn. 264 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; State v. Ritt, 76 Minn. 531 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , .

Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , .

Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , ; State v. Ames, 87 Minn. 23 , ; Le Tourneau v. Hugo, 90 Minn. 420 , ; Kaiser v. Campbell, 90 Minn. 375 , ; State v. Henderson, 97 Minn. 369 , ; Farwell v. City of Minneapolis, 105 Minn. 178 , .

Thus, in Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , , an act legalizing bonds to take up general indebtedness of cities of a certain class, in State v. Gunn, 92 Minn. 436 , , an act legalizing county orders and .authorizing the issuance of certificates of indebtedness, and in State v. Brown, 97 Minn. 402 , , an act legalizing s

Provided, no such bonds shall be issued or sold unless the ordinance or ordinances authorizing their issuance and sale shall have been duly passed and enacted by the common council prior to the first day of January, 1909.?’ -A" In our view of the subject, the statute comes within the decision •in Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , , and State v. Ames, 87 Minn. 23 , .

In Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445, 448 , , it was held that this amendment did not repeal section 33 and section 34 of article 4, but authorizes the legislature to make population a basis of classification, although there is no natural relation between the subject-matter of the proposed law and the number of people in the classified citie

The act in this respect comes within the rule laid down in Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , .

In the case of Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , , followed in State v. Ames, 87 Minn. 23 , , and Le Tourneau v. Hugo, 90 Minn. 420 , , it was held that *67 the purpose of the amendment (section 36, art. 4, Const. [Laws 1899, p. vi]) was to enable the legislature to make population a basis of classification, although there mig

Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , .

In Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , , it was held that the amendment of 1899 (Laws 1899, p. vi) authorizes the Legislature to classify cities on the basis of population for the purposes of general legislation, without regard to the relation of such basis to the subject-matter of the legislative enactment.

affairs of cities, the application of which may be limited to cities of over fifty thousand inhabitants, or to cities of fifty and not less than twenty thousand inhabitants, or to cities of twenty and not less than ten thousand inhabitants, or to cities of ten thousand inhabitants or less, which shall apply equally to all such cities of either class.” *423 As said in Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , : “It is manifest that the purpose of this amendment was not practically to repeal sec

This order will have to be affirmed, on the authority of Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , .

Ramsey Co., 81 Minn. 359 , ; State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , ; Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445 , .

constitution “authorizes the legislature to classify for the purpose' of general legislation cities on the basis of population *25 therein specified, although such basis would not have previously been germane to the purpose or subject-matter of the proposed law, but that otherwise the provisions of sections 38 and 34, of article 4, are not affected by the amendment.” Alexander v. City of Duluth, 77 Minn. 445, 448 , .