Cited by

1 Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188

Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , Bierlein v. Gagnon, 255 Minn. 143 , Larson-Roberts Electric Co. Inc. v. Burdick, 267 Minn. 486

514.14), in Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , .

3 Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , ; Anderson v. Donahue, 116 Minn. 380 , ; Lindquist v. Young, 119 Minn. 219 , ; Behrens v. Kruse, 121 Minn. 90 , ; Middelstadt v. Kostendick, 144 Minn. 319 , ; Barrett v. Hampe, supra.

a case not concerned with this question), we have said that the allowance of attorneys’ fees is— “to be exercised at the trial according to the circumstances of each particular case, * * Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188, 191 , .

In allowing attorney’s fees to mechanics’ lien claimants the court said the awarding thereof was “to be exercised at the trial.” Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188, 191 , .

We call attention however to the fact that the construction permitting the allowance of reasonable attorney’s fees under that statute, in Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , , rested upon the word “costs” and not “disbursements.” We are not unmindful of the memorandum accompanying the decision of the Industrial Commission in support of the suggestion that the Industrial Commission or the referee should have discretionary power to allow to the employe attorney’s fees, but w

Tbe argument which in Scbmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , , led tbe court to allow attorney’s fees in tbe foreclosure of mechanics’ lien under tbe wording of tbe 1905 revision of a prior statute is not applicable here, for tbe general law expressly names such fees, while tbe charter provision is silent.

Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , *471 ; State v. District Court of St.

Section 7032, G. S. 1913, as construed in Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , .

Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , .

In fact the presumption is that no change was intended, and the new will be construed as a continuation of the old law unless an intention to change it clearly appears: State v. Stroschein, 99 Minn. 248 , ; Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307 , ; Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , ; Evans v. City of Redwood Falls, 103 Minn. 314 , .

Hugo v. Miller, 50 Minn. 105, 111 , ; Becklin v. Becklin, 99 Minn. 307, 311 , ; Evans v. City of Redwood Falls, 103 Minn. 314 , ; Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188, 191 , ; Odegard v. Lemire, 107 Minn. 315, 317 , ; State v. Ledbeter, 111 Minn. 110 , ; U. S. & Canada Land Co. v. Sullivan, 113 Minn. 27 , , An.

That this-statute permits the allowance of expenses for attorneys’ services by way of costs has been held in Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , , and as at present advised, the constitutional objection raised by appellant is answered by the decision in Cameron v. Chicago, M. & St.

We think this question was disposed of adversely to appellant’s contention in the case of Schmoll v. Lucht, 106 Minn. 188 , .