Cited by

Rippe v. Becker , 56 Minn. 100 , 57 N.W.

Accordingly, although the Court in Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , 57 N.W.

Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , Erickson v. King, 218 Minn. 98 , Visina v. Freeman, supra; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency v. Hatfield, 294 Minn. 260

on of what is and what is not a public purpose, or the performance of a governmental function, initially is for the legislature, but in the final analysis it must rest with the courts.” Minn. Const, art. 9, § 5, provides in pertinent part: “The state shall never be a party in carrying on works of internal improvements * * In interpreting this constitutional provision, we said, in Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100, 117 , involving the appropriation of funds by the legislature for the building of a gr

Similar cases have been decided on a more or less completely different basis but die lines of attack on doubtful activities or transactions in the field we are considering has been fairly consistent over the years as may be gathered from the decisions of this court in Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , 22 L. R. A. 857, and the more recent case of Visina v. Freeman, supra.

In Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100, 117 , , 22 L. R. A. 857, this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Mitchell, said: “* * * those [works] which are used exclusively by and for the state, as a sovereign, in the performance of its governmental functions, such as a state capítol, state university, penitentiaries, reformatories, asylums

Plaintiff relies for the most part on Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , 22 L. R. A. 857.

Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , 22 L. R. A. 857; Berman v. Minnesota S. A. Society, 93 Minn. 125 , ; State ex rel.

Smith v. Van Reed, 125 Minn. 194 , Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100, 117 , , 22 L. R. A. 857.

Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , 57 N.W.

The remarks of Mr. Justice Mitchell in the case of Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100, 118 , , 22 L. R. A. 857, are here quite pertinent.

Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 -118, , 22 L. R. A. 857; Lommen v. Minneapolis Gaslight Co. 65 Minn. 196 -208, , 33 L. R. A. 437, 60 Am.

Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , 22 L. B. A. 857; State v. Chicago, M. & St.

In Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , Justice Mitchell said: “The right of the state, in the exercise of its police power, to regulate the 'business of receiving, weighing, inspecting, and storing grain for others, in elevators or warehouses, as being a business affected with a public interest, is now settled beyond all controversy.

Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , 22 L.R.A.

Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , [ 22 L.R.A.

Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , 22 L.R.A.

In State v. Foley, 30 Minn. 350 , ; Coates v. Campbell, 37 Minn. 498 , ; Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , 22 L.R.A.

on, doubtless, the legislature may, in the exercise of that power, adopt any measures they see fit, provided only they adopt such as have some relation *129 to, and hare some tendency to accomplish, the desired end; and if the measures adopted have such relation or tendency the courts will never assume to determine whether they are wise, or the best that might have been adopted.” Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , 22 L. R. A. 857; State v. Corbett, 57 Minn. 345 , , 24 L. R. A. 498.

Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , 22 L. R. A. 857.

Such action by the state would not constitute a work of internal improvement within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition that “the state shall never contract any debts for works of internal improvement or be a-party in carrying on such works.” Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , , 22 L. R. A. 857.

State v. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74 , ; Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 101 , 108, , 22 L. R. A. 857.

And the Attorney General also contends that the whole question involved in this case has already been determined by this court in each of the following cases: State v. Foley, 30 Minn. 350 , ; Coates v. Campbell, 37 Minn. 498 , ; Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , ; Wm.

Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , .

Rippe v. Becker, 56 Minn. 100 , ; Cater v. N. W. Tel.