Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Compliance with terms of the statute

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    [29] The authority of the bureau being wholly statutory, it must be exercised in conformity to the statute.5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. & Supps. 1932, 1934) §
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 24, 2005
    • 0 Attachment

      [29] The authority of the bureau being wholly statutory, it must be exercised in conformity to

      the statute.5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. & Supps. 1932, 1934) § 7998; Kipp v. Dawson , 31

      Minn. 373, 17 N.W. 961, 18 N.W. 96; Murray v. Zook, 205 Ind. 669, 187 N.E. 890, 90 A.L.R.

      321; Rockne v. Olson, 191 Minn. 310, 254 N.W. 5. Full compliance with the terms of the

      statute was requisite to authorize the bureau to designate a carrier. Whether the statute be

      mandatory or directory in its requirements is not controlling. The statute commands

      obedience, otherwise it would not have been enacted. The rule by which statutes are held to be

      directory as to certain requirements is to sustain action after the act against failure to comply

      with the statute in certain respects, but never to compel noncompliance in any respect before

      the act. It would seem to be the duty of courts to compel obedience, not disobedience, to the

      commands of the statute and to sustain action justified by insistence on compliance with law.

      Kipp v. Dawson , (supra) . The new corporation, prior to March 26, 1936, by noncompliance

      with the statute failed to perfect a right to have a designation of an insurer made for it by the

      bureau. Where an employer is entitled to a designation, he can compel designation under the

      statute by mandamus, Texas Employers' Ins. Assn. v. U.S. Torpedo Co. (Tex. Com. App.)

      26 S.W. (2d) 1057; Russell v. Texas Employers' Ins. Assn. ( Tex. Civ. App.) 61 S.W. (2d)

      553; Southern Casualty Co. v. Freeman (Tex. Civ. App.) 13 S.E. (2d) 148; but mandamus will

      be denied where it is shown that the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of a statute

      or ordinance which are conditions to his right to the action demanded. Edwards Mfg. Co. v.

      Farrington, 102 Me. 140, 66 A. 309; State ex rel. Morton v. Hauser, 17 Ohio App. 4; Doble

      Steam Motors Corp. v. Daugherty, 195 Cal. 158, 232 P. 140; R. & B. Realty & Construction

      Co. Inc. v. Jelleme, 2 N.J. Misc. 356, 130 A. 365; 38 C.J. p. 575, § 49.

      Yoselowitz v. Peoples Bakery, 1938.MN.13 <http://www.versuslaw.com>, 277 N.W. 221 ( Minn. 1938).

       

      PHONE #s: 970-330-3883/720-203-5142 c. 

      For mailing:  Excellence Unlimited, 2830 27th St. Ln. #B115,  Greeley , CO   80634  

      BEAR'S WEB PAGES:

      www.legal-research-video.com
      www.legalbears.com
      www.freedivorceforms.net
      www.irs-armory.com

      And, for optimum health:
      www.mannapages.com/barrysmith
      To subscribe to Tips & Tricks for court send an email to:
      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.