Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Hallam
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal from temporary injunction order and demurrer ruling in district court for Ramsey county
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appeals from temporary injunction orders in two cases challenging the constitutionality of Minnesota's 1913 Minimum Wage Commission law. The court upheld the legislature's police power to enact minimum wage legislation for workers, particularly women and minors.
Excerpt
<p>Two actions in the district court for Ramsey county. The Williams action was by a taxpayer on his own behalf and on behalf of other taxpayers similarly situated. The Earner action was by the owner of a manufacturing plant at which a large number of women workers, adult and minor, were employed. Both actions were to restrain the members of the Minimum Wage Commission from expending any money in furtherance of the provisions of Laws 1913, p. 789, c. 547, and to restrain defendant Iverson, as state auditor, from auditing any claims incurred by the commission on account of anything done under the provisions of the act and to restrain him from issuing any warrant in payment of any such claim.</p> <p>Plaintiffs obtained orders requiring defendants to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue. Prom an order in each case, Catlin, J., granting plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary injunction, defendants appealed. Prom an order in the Earner case overruling their demurrer to the complaint, defendants appealed.</p> <p>The experience of the world and our common knowledge are continually changing. Things unknown a century ago are now familiar to us all; children of today are fully 'acquainted with modem inventions, such as telephones, electric lights, and other modern improvements; this common knowledge is not the same as it was even 25 years ago. Therefore the power of government termed the police power, being based upon common knowledge of what is injurious to the health, morals or welfare of the public, must of necessity be elastic as is the common knowledge itself. When that experience and knowledge have taught us that certain things are injurious in any of these respects, then the police power expands to meet the necessity caused by onr increased knowledge.</p> <p>Under our form of government the legislature determines whether conditions call for corrective legislation. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 660, 8 Sup. Ct. 273, 31 L. ed. 205. The legislature, in pas
Similar Rulings
<p>On demurrer to the bill and upon a rule to show cause why an injunction should not issue restraining the defendants from utilizing a trade secret.</p> <p>The bill sets out that the Electro Tinfabriek, a foreign co-partnership, was in 1898 the owner of a secret process’ for detinning tin scrap; that on February 19th, 1899, the Tinfabriek assigned the secret process to A. Kerns & Company and their assigns, giving them a statement in writing of such secret process and of the manner of erecting plants for its utilization; that Kerns & Company, on April 23d, 1898, assigned the said process to the Yulcan Metal Refinipg Company of New Jersey, which company erected a plant at Sewaren, New Jersey, under the direction of M. Laenes, a member of said Electro Tinfabriek; that two of the directors of the Yulcan Metal Refining Company and of its executive committee, who negotiated this assignment, were Eranz A. Assman and Adolph Kerns; that for the purposes of preserving the secrecy of the process a written statement of it was confided to each of four directors, of whom Eranz A. Assman was one; that Assman had opportunities to examine the operations of the complainant; that the business of the complainant was successful.</p> <p>The bill then states that a New Jersey company, known as the Yulcan Western , Company, was organized on July 25th, 1899, which, company built a plant at Streator, Illinois, of which company Mr. Assman was a director and member of its executive committee until June 1st, 1901; that this company obtained from the Vulcan Metal Eefining Company the right to use the secret process, and began business at once; and that the two companies mentioned made improvements in the construction and operation of their plants, which improvements were kept secret from all persons except their trusted employes and officers, including Mr. Assman; that one Philip Bauman was employed as foreman in the Sewaren plant, and as such became familiar with the construction and operation
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.