289 N.W. 784 | Minn. | 1939
Plaintiff claims that she had a contract which was impaired by the action of the city. That she had a contract is clear. But it was subject to such change in compensation as has taken place, pursuant to the action of the city within its charter powers. We hold that there was no impairment of the contract.
The judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Peterson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
*1