saving clause in North Dakota

2011Newgirg v. Black , 174 Iowa 636, 645 , 156 N.W. 708 .

1986State v. Olson, 356 N.W.2d 110 (N.D.1984); City of Dickinson v. Mueller, 261 N.W.2d 787 (N.D.1977).

1986State v. Olson, 356 N.W.2d 110 (N.D.1984); City of Dickinson v. Mueller, 261 N.W.2d 787 (N.D.1977).

1986State v. Olson, 356 N.W.2d 110 (N.D.1984); City of Dickinson v. Mueller, 261 N.W.2d 787 (N.D.1977).

1986State v. Olson, 356 N.W.2d 110 (N.D.1984); City of Dickinson v. Mueller, 261 N.W.2d 787 (N.D.1977).

1976Those decisions must ordinarily be made before the prosecution terminates, and § 1103(a) preserves the limitations of § 7237(d) on decisions made at that time." See also, Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 , 94 S.Ct. 2532 , 41 L.Ed.2d 383 (1974), wherein the Court said a similar saving clause also applied to parole eligibility. *808 The rationale of the United States Supreme Court fully applies to the instant situation.

1976Those decisions must ordinarily be made before the prosecution terminates, and § 1103(a) preserves the limitations of § 7237(d) on decisions made at that time." See also, Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 , 94 S.Ct. 2532 , 41 L.Ed.2d 383 (1974), wherein the Court said a similar saving clause also applied to parole eligibility. *808 The rationale of the United States Supreme Court fully applies to the instant situation.

1972Many cases support the rule that: “Where . . . the limitation is on the right to exercise the authority, the failure to proceed within the time limited may not be excused and no explanation as to why proceedings were not taken within the time prescribed will toll the statute or prevent the bar unless the statute itself contains a saving clause.” Langer v. Gray, supra, 25 N.W.2d at 91-92 .

1949Corp. v. Huss, 199 Cal 21, 248 P 235 , supra, the Supreme Court of Colorado said: “It (the saving clause) was inserted in the act for the purpose of indicating to the court, when required to pass upon the constitutionality of the act or of any portion thereof, and to apply the rules of law applicable thereto, that the statute would have been enacted with the objectionable portions omitted in the event the court should conclude that said portions were separable and beyond the power of the Legislature lawfully to incorporate in the statute.” In Crowell v. Benson, supra, certain constitutional ob

1949Co. v. Huss, 199 Cal 21, 248 P 235 , supra, the Supreme Court of California held that certain provisions of the motor vehicle transportation license act exempting operators of sight-seeing motor vehicles and those deriving receipts from United States mail contracts were unconstitutional but that such provisions were separable and did' not operate to invalidate the remainder of the act, a saving clause providing that invalidity of any portion should not destroy the remainder and the court being required to support the legislative will so far as possible.

1949Yet we do not doubt that it is within legislative compe *612 tency to remove, by express assertion in the act, any uncertainty, in the judicial mind, as to what the Legislature would have done in respect of the adoption of the act, with the invalid parts thereof stricken, before passage, therefrom.” In Saari v. Gleason, 126 Minn 378, 148 NW 293 , supra, the Supreme Court of Minnesota applied the saving clause in construing a corrupt practices act.

1949Corp. v. Huss, 199 Cal 21, 248 P 235 , supra, the Supreme Court of Colorado said: “It (the saving clause) was inserted in the act for the purpose of indicating to the court, when required to pass upon the constitutionality of the act or of any portion thereof, and to apply the rules of law applicable thereto, that the statute would have been enacted with the objectionable portions omitted in the event the court should conclude that said portions were separable and beyond the power of the Legislature lawfully to incorporate in the statute.” In Crowell v. Benson, supra, certain constitutional ob

1949In an opinion written by Chief Justice Hughes the court said: “We think that this requirement (saving clause) clearly evidences the intention of the Congress hot only that an express provision found to be unconstitutional should be disregarded without disturbing the remainder of the statute, but also that *613 any implication from the terms of the Act which would render them invalid should not be indulged.” 285 US 63 , 76 L ed 619, 52 S Ct 285 .

1949In Highland Farms Dairy v. Agnew, 300 US 608 ; 81 L ed 835, 57 S Ct 549 , the Supreme Court of the United States held that: “The validity of a state statute establishing a milk commission, with power to create within the state natural market areas and to fix the minimum and maximum prices to be charged for milk and cream therein, is -not affected by the-possible invalidity of a provision for the cancelation of the prices established for a market area if the cancelation is requested by a majority of the producers and distributors in such area, where the statute itself provides that if any part

1949In Highland Farms Dairy v. Agnew, 300 US 608 ; 81 L ed 835, 57 S Ct 549 , the Supreme Court of the United States held that: “The validity of a state statute establishing a milk commission, with power to create within the state natural market areas and to fix the minimum and maximum prices to be charged for milk and cream therein, is -not affected by the-possible invalidity of a provision for the cancelation of the prices established for a market area if the cancelation is requested by a majority of the producers and distributors in such area, where the statute itself provides that if any part

1949In Standard Lumber Co. v. Pierce, 112 Or 314 , 228 P 812 , supra, the Supreme Court of Oregon held that an income tax act containing a saving- clause is not invalidated as a whole, by the invalidity of a provision therein discriminating against corporations having all or part nonresident stockholders, but that the valid provisions of the law will be given effect.

1949In Standard Lumber Co. v. Pierce, 112 Or 314 , 228 P 812 , supra, the Supreme Court of Oregon held that an income tax act containing a saving- clause is not invalidated as a whole, by the invalidity of a provision therein discriminating against corporations having all or part nonresident stockholders, but that the valid provisions of the law will be given effect.

1943In Department of Banking v. Foe, 136 Neb 422, 286 NW 264 , 123 ALR 894 , paragraph 2 of the syllabus by the court it is said: “The repeal of a constitutional provision, imposing double liability on corporate stockholders of an insolvent bank, not containing a saving clause, does not affect the obligation of such stockholders as to liabilities incurred by the banking institution prior to _such repeal.” The Farmers and Merchants Bank of Elgin continued to operate as a banking institution until taken over by the State Examiner on October 30, 1937.

1943In Department of Banking v. Foe, 136 Neb 422, 286 NW 264 , 123 ALR 894 , paragraph 2 of the syllabus by the court it is said: “The repeal of a constitutional provision, imposing double liability on corporate stockholders of an insolvent bank, not containing a saving clause, does not affect the obligation of such stockholders as to liabilities incurred by the banking institution prior to _such repeal.” The Farmers and Merchants Bank of Elgin continued to operate as a banking institution until taken over by the State Examiner on October 30, 1937.

1938In Coe v. Muller, 74 Fla. 399 , 77 So. 88 , the court held that the repeal of usury laws without a saving clause operates retrospectively so as to cut off the defense of usury for the future, even in actions upon contracts previously made.

1938In Coe v. Muller, 74 Fla. 399 , 77 So. 88 , the court held that the repeal of usury laws without a saving clause operates retrospectively so as to cut off the defense of usury for the future, even in actions upon contracts previously made.

1936In Brye v. Dale, 64 N. D. 41 , 250 N. W. 99 , we were required to pass upon the validity of Chapter 64 of the Session Laws of 1933 which sought to transfer and loan “to the real estate bond interest payment fund from the Permanent Ilail Surplus Fund the sum of $500,000.00, to be used in the payment of interest now due, or to become due, on said bonds. . . 'We held unanimously that such loan was a diversion and unconstitutional under “§§ 175, 177 and article 24 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the state of North Dakota.” In the opinion we showed that in these constitutional provisions i

1936In Brye v. Dale, 64 N. D. 41 , 250 N. W. 99 , we were required to pass upon the validity of Chapter 64 of the Session Laws of 1933 which sought to transfer and loan “to the real estate bond interest payment fund from the Permanent Ilail Surplus Fund the sum of $500,000.00, to be used in the payment of interest now due, or to become due, on said bonds. . . 'We held unanimously that such loan was a diversion and unconstitutional under “§§ 175, 177 and article 24 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the state of North Dakota.” In the opinion we showed that in these constitutional provisions i

1905Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich, 398 ; Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 356 ; Auditor General v. Supervisors, 36 Mich. 70 ; Thomas v. Collins, 58 Mich. 64 , 24 N. W. 553 ; Hall v. Perry, 72 Mich, 202 , 40 N. W. 324 ; City v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303 ; Smith v. Kelly, 24 Or. 464 , 33 Pac. 642 ; 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 2681, and cases cited.

1905Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich, 398 ; Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 356 ; Auditor General v. Supervisors, 36 Mich. 70 ; Thomas v. Collins, 58 Mich. 64 , 24 N. W. 553 ; Hall v. Perry, 72 Mich, 202 , 40 N. W. 324 ; City v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303 ; Smith v. Kelly, 24 Or. 464 , 33 Pac. 642 ; 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 2681, and cases cited.

1905Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich, 398 ; Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 356 ; Auditor General v. Supervisors, 36 Mich. 70 ; Thomas v. Collins, 58 Mich. 64 , 24 N. W. 553 ; Hall v. Perry, 72 Mich, 202 , 40 N. W. 324 ; City v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303 ; Smith v. Kelly, 24 Or. 464 , 33 Pac. 642 ; 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 2681, and cases cited.

1905Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich, 398 ; Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 356 ; Auditor General v. Supervisors, 36 Mich. 70 ; Thomas v. Collins, 58 Mich. 64 , 24 N. W. 553 ; Hall v. Perry, 72 Mich, 202 , 40 N. W. 324 ; City v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303 ; Smith v. Kelly, 24 Or. 464 , 33 Pac. 642 ; 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 2681, and cases cited.

1905Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich, 398 ; Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 356 ; Auditor General v. Supervisors, 36 Mich. 70 ; Thomas v. Collins, 58 Mich. 64 , 24 N. W. 553 ; Hall v. Perry, 72 Mich, 202 , 40 N. W. 324 ; City v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303 ; Smith v. Kelly, 24 Or. 464 , 33 Pac. 642 ; 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 2681, and cases cited.

1905Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich, 398 ; Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 356 ; Auditor General v. Supervisors, 36 Mich. 70 ; Thomas v. Collins, 58 Mich. 64 , 24 N. W. 553 ; Hall v. Perry, 72 Mich, 202 , 40 N. W. 324 ; City v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303 ; Smith v. Kelly, 24 Or. 464 , 33 Pac. 642 ; 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 2681, and cases cited.

1905Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich, 398 ; Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 356 ; Auditor General v. Supervisors, 36 Mich. 70 ; Thomas v. Collins, 58 Mich. 64 , 24 N. W. 553 ; Hall v. Perry, 72 Mich, 202 , 40 N. W. 324 ; City v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303 ; Smith v. Kelly, 24 Or. 464 , 33 Pac. 642 ; 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 2681, and cases cited.

1905Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich, 398 ; Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 356 ; Auditor General v. Supervisors, 36 Mich. 70 ; Thomas v. Collins, 58 Mich. 64 , 24 N. W. 553 ; Hall v. Perry, 72 Mich, 202 , 40 N. W. 324 ; City v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303 ; Smith v. Kelly, 24 Or. 464 , 33 Pac. 642 ; 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 2681, and cases cited.

1905Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich, 398 ; Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 356 ; Auditor General v. Supervisors, 36 Mich. 70 ; Thomas v. Collins, 58 Mich. 64 , 24 N. W. 553 ; Hall v. Perry, 72 Mich, 202 , 40 N. W. 324 ; City v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303 ; Smith v. Kelly, 24 Or. 464 , 33 Pac. 642 ; 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 2681, and cases cited.

1905Smith v. Humphrey, 20 Mich, 398 ; Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 356 ; Auditor General v. Supervisors, 36 Mich. 70 ; Thomas v. Collins, 58 Mich. 64 , 24 N. W. 553 ; Hall v. Perry, 72 Mich, 202 , 40 N. W. 324 ; City v. Whipple, 44 Cal. 303 ; Smith v. Kelly, 24 Or. 464 , 33 Pac. 642 ; 1 Cooley on Taxation (3d Ed.) 2681, and cases cited.