Cited by

Hurst v. Town of Martinsburg, 80 Minn. 40 , ; Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , .

& Loan Co. 61 Minn. 35 , ; Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , ; Carlson v. Township of Elmo, 141 Minn. 240 , ; Champ v. Brown, 197 Minn. 49 , .

243 ; Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , 116 N.W.

Hildebrandt v. Fitzgerald, 117 Minn. 192 , ; Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , ; State ex rel.

See particularly Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , ; Hjelm v. Patterson, 105 Minn. 256 , , 127 A. S. R. 560; Driscoll v. Bd.

So, in referring to a similar statute, the court in Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378, 382 , , said: “It is quite clear that the statute in question does not arbitrarily discriminate in favor of the owner of land occupied and used for agricultural purposes, for it is not difficult to suggest reasons for the classification in this respect.

Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , ; Jones v. City of Red Lake Falls, 116 Minn. 454 , .

Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , ; State ex rel.

Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , 116 N.W.

Co. 126 Minn. 286 , , L. R. A. 1916D, 412; Thorpe Bros. Inc. v. County of Itasca, 171 Minn. 312 , ; Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , ; Dohs v. Holm, 152 Minn. 529 , ; State v. Ames, 91 Minn. 365 , ; Spencer v. Griffith, 74 Minn. 55 , ; State ex rel.

914 ; Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , 116 N.W.

In Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , , and Lodoen v. City of Warren, 146 Minn. 181 , , it was held that, when the legislature enacted a law applicable to cities of the fourth class, it might except cities having home rule charters from the operation of the law, and that such a classification was not arbitrary.

Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , Marwin v. Board of Auditorium Commissioners, 140 Minn. 346 , .

See Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , .

Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , .

327; Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , ; Quong Wing v. Kirkendall, 39 Mont.

court shall find that such tract ■of land is of the nature and quantity as hereinbefore set forth” (that is, unplatted, not less than forty acres in extent, and used and occupied exclusively for agricultural purposes), “and that it may be detached from such city without unreasonably affecting the symmetry of the settled portions of such city, it may grant such decree.” In Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , , it was expressly held that, notwithstanding the statute provided that the court “m

The case of Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , , where the word “may” was construed as “shall” is clearly distinguishable.

Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378, 382 , .

799 ; Hurst v. Town of Martinsburg, 80 Minn. 40, 43 , ; Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378, 380, 381 , .

State v. Brown, 97 *406 Minn. 402 , ; Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , .

The assignments of error present two questions for consideration: (1) The constitutionality of chapter 221, p. 294, Laws 1907; and (2) its application to the municipality known in this state as a “borough.” The first question was determined adversely to appellant’s contention in the case of Hunter v. City of Tracy, 104 Minn. 378 , , where the validity of the statute was upheld.

This is an action of the same character and involves the same questions of law as that of Hunter v. City of Tracy, supra, page 378, .