Boenig v. Hornberg
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This case was originally tried in a justice’s court, and was brought to recover the value of one-half of a partition fence erected between the lands of the parties. Judgment having been there given for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed to the district court for Winona county. The action was again tried in that court by Mitchell, J., without a jury.
Read the full summary
This case was originally tried in a justice’s court, and was brought to recover the value of one-half of a partition fence erected between the lands of the parties. Judgment having been there given for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed to the district court for Winona county. The action was again tried in that court by Mitchell, J., without a jury. The court found that the plaintiff built the fence in question in 1868, ■and that the defendant enclosed his land in June, 1873; that the fence built by defendant in enclosing his land was not a lawful fence within the meaning of section 1, c.…
1Opinion of the CourtCornell, J.
This action was brought to recover the value *309of one moiety of a partition fence erected by plaintiff on the; line between him and tbe defendant, as regularly ascertained and awarded by the fence viewers under section 15, c. 18„ (3-en. St. This section provides that “when any unenclosed grounds are afterwards enclosed the owner or occupant thereof shall pay one-half of each partition fence standing upon the line between his land and the enclosure of any other owner or occupant, and the value thereof shall be ascertained by a majority of the supervisors of the town, in writing, under their…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McClay v. ClarkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Carey v. SchweitzerSuperior Court of Delaware · 1926
- Brom v. KalmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975