Weaver v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action arises out of the same facts as those on which the last preceding case was founded, and was brought by plaintiff in the district court for Hennepin county, to recover damages for defendant’s continued occupation of his land since the commencement of the former suit. The action was tried by Young, J., and a jury, who returned a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
Mitchell, J.*
In the consideration of another case at this time, between the same parties, for other acts of trespass arising out of the same state of facts, we have passed upon all the questions arising *543in the present ease except two — one as to the sufficiency of the complaint, and the other as to the exclusion of certain evidence offered on the trial by defendant. The complaint alleges that plaintiff was the owner of certain premises; that defendant, ever since August 23, 1880, has been in the wrongful and unlawful possession of the same, and wrongfully and unlawfully uses and occupies the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Bank of British Columbia v. City of Port TownsendWashington Supreme Court · 1897
- Colbert v. City of ArdmoreSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Donlon v. EvansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Johansen v. Arizona Hotel, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1930
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Wm. Bondies Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.