Cited by

Lum v. Archibald, 43 Minn. 328 , ; Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.

In Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271, 283 , , we said: “* * * a later law, which is merely a re-enactment of a former, does not repeal an intermediate act which qualifies or limits the first one, but such intermediate act will be deemed to remain in force, and to qualify or modify the new act in the same manner as it did the first.” Tha

The rule is well settled that delivery of a gift to third party for the benefit of the donee is sufficient, Innes v. Potter, 130 Minn. 320 , , 3 A. L. R. 896, supra, just as is delivery of a deed, Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , ; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , .” In Bank of Metropolis v. Faber, 150 N. Y. 200, 207 , 44 N. E. 779, 781 , the court said of the amendment of an act so as to read as follows: “Acts passed at the same legislative session and by the same body of legislators, on the same subject, should certainly be considered when it becomes important

A discussion of the effect upon an intermediate act of the enactment of a later law, which is no more than the reenactment of a former one, the rule relative to which apparently was first stated in Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , , is not profitable for the purposes of this controversy.

Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , .

Justice Mitchell, in Gaston v. Merrian, 33 Minn. 271, 283 , , says: “All laws are to be presumed to be passed with deliberation, and with full knowledge of all existing ones on the same subject; and it is, therefore, a reasonable conclusion that the legislature, in passing a statute, did not intend to interfere with or abrogate any prior law relating to the

The court characterized the power to impose a retroactive tax as “dangerous,” and said that if it “exists at all, there is no limit to it; and it might illustrate the subject to consider the result if church property now exempt should, as it lawfully might, be made subject to taxation in the future, and not only so, but retroactively, for 10 or 20, or even 50 years back.” In Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , , it was said that a statute which creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, in r

The rule was first stated in Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271, 283 , , and was applied in Powell v. King, 78 Minn. 83 , , and in Nelson v. County of Itasca, 131 Minn. 478 , .

Wilson v. Red Wing School District, 22 Minn. 488, 490 ; State v. Waholz, 28 Minn. 114 , ; State v. Hill, 32 Minn. 275 , ; Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , ; Powers v. City of St.

“Delivery to an agent or delivery to a stranger or for record, even if done *223 without the knowledge of the grantee, is, if followed by his assent, a good delivery.” Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , .

Wilson v. Red Wing School District, 22 Minn. 488 ; Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , ; Brown v. Hughes, 89 Minn. 150 , ; and see City of Rutland v. Town of Chittenden, 74 Vt. 219 , 52 Atl.

We should -have reached this conclusion were there no precedent to guide us, but we think the decision in Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271, , is decisive of the question.

Kerlinger v. Barnes, 14 Minn. 398 (521); Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , ; St.

odied in a new one, are not to be deemed repealed and re-enacted, but to have been the law all the time.” “A later law, which is merely a re-enactment of a former, does’ not repeal an intermediate act which qualifies or limits the first one, but such intermediate act will be deemed to remain in force, and to qualify or modify the new act in the same manner as it did the first.” Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , ; Powell v. King, 78 Minn. 83 , .

Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271, 283 , .

Davidson v. Gaston, 16 Minn. 202 (230); Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , ; Julien v. Model Loan Co., 116 Wis.

Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , ; Nicol v. City of St.

Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , .

Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , .

Stevens v. Hatch, 6 Minn. 19 , (64;) Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , ( 22 N. W. Rep.

Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271, 280 , ( 22 N. W. Rep.

Stevens v. Hatch, 6 Minn. 19 , (64;) Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , ( 22 N. W. Rep.

Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 , ( 22 N. W. Rep.