Cited by

In Wipperman Mercantile Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , 158 N.W.

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326, 331 , , the court stated: *322 “In construing the revised laws reference may be had to the report of the commission which drafted them, as the legislature undoubtedly gave weight to such report in enacting them.

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326, 331 , .

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , , the court went back to the origin of the statute in the Laws of 1860 and reviewed all subsequent enactments pertaining thereto, pointing out that no substantial change had been made during a period of something over 40 years.

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , ; Dahl v. Neib, 180 Minn. 119 , .

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , .

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , ; Salmon v. Central Tr.

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , .

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , 158 N.W.

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , .

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , ; James v. Pettis, 134 Minn. 438 , ; Venie v. Harriet State Bank, 146 Minn. 142 , ; Fox v. Fox, 154 Minn. 169 , .

Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , , Judge Taylor, in stating the rule, said: “In construing the revised laws reference may be had to the report of the commission which drafted them, as the legislature undoubtedly gave weight to such report in enacting them.

That in such way the law was divided into two sections, 2028 and 2029, R. S. 1905; section 4390 and 4391, G. S. 1913, and that, insofar as the question here raised is concerned, no repeal or amendment has ever been enacted, citing the report of the Revision Commission 1905, p. 17, in support of its contention; also section 9402, G. S. 1913; and Wipperman Mercantile Co. v. Jacobson, 133 Minn. 326 , .