Cited by

209 , 211 (1904); Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 132-33 , 84 N.W.

209 , 211 (1904) (invalidating only the last provision of a'law); Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 132-33 , 84 N.W.

(first alteration in original) (quoting Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 129 , 84 N.W.

(quoting Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 129 , 84 N.W.

Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 129 , 84 N.W.

As we stated in the case of Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 129 , 84 N.W.

All which is in the act is “naturally connected with and suggested by the subject of the act as expressed in its title.” Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 132 , .

As we stated in the case of Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 129 , , 789: “* * * But ‘canons of construction are not the masters of the courts, but merely their servants, to aid them in ascertaining the *103 legislative intent’; and when it is ascertained the statute must be so construed as to give effect to such intention, even if it seem contrary to such rules a

Palmer v. Bank of Zumbrota, 72 Minn. 266 , ; Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , ; State ex rel.

Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , 129 , 84 N.W.

“* * * ‘canons of construction are not the masters of the courts, but merely their servants, to aid them in ascertaining the legislative intent’; and when it is ascertained the statute must be so construed as to give effect to such intention, even if it seem contrary to such rules and the strict letter of the statute.” Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 129 , .

In construing legislative enactments, it is well to bear in mind that (Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 129 , ),— “ 'canons of construction are not the masters of the courts, but merely their servants, to aid them in ascertaining the legislative intent’; and when it is ascertained the statute must be so construed as to give effect to such intention, even if it seem contrary to such rules and the stric

Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , 84 N.W.

Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Within such cases as Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , , and City of Duluth v. Abrahamson, 96 Minn. 39 , , both involving the sufficiency of the title of ordinances of the respondent city, we think there is no question but that the title is a fair index to the contents of the ordinance.

382; Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , ; Ek v. St.

Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , ; Hawes v. Fliegler, 87 Minn. 319 , .

In Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , , decided .in January, 1901, it was held that the act, in so far as it required the statutory notice to be given in actions for injuries due to the negligence of the officers or employees of a municipality, which are in no manner connected with any of the enumerated utilities, places, or works of the mu

Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , ; Megins v. City of Duluth, 97 Minn. 23 , .

Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , .

The title does not set out the whole of the statute, nor is it essential that it should; but it does not serve as a cloak for legislating upon dissimilar matters, or subjects not naturally connected with the one embraced in the title, as suggested in Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , .

Paul Permanent Loan Co., 84 Minn. 245 , ; Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127, 131 , ; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 , 21 Am.

An examination of the record discloses that the plaintiff in the case of Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , , was an employee of the city, and was injured while engaged in the performance of his duties; but the precise question here involved was not there discussed nor decided.

In Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , , the rule was applied to this statute for the purpose of determining whether certain words which appear in the title were intended to be given their usual meaning or read in a restricted sense.