Legal Opinion

Lobnitz v. Fairchild

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 27, 1932No. 28,813PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.

Defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The action is to determine a boundary line between city lots, and the trial court determined the line according to the city plat, declining to apply the doctrine of estoppel and later refused to amend the findings.

In 1921, while the Minnesota Implement Company owned lots one to ten, inclusive, of a certain block in an addition to Willmar, it built a foundry building 40 x 60 on what ivas supposed to be lot seven, which lies between lots six and eight. One Dahl furnished labor and material therefor. He filed a mechanic’s lien…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Thompson v. BorgSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
  2. Bolton v. EgglestonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
  3. Mowers v. EversMichigan Supreme Court · 1898

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Deli v. HasselmoCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
  2. Carl v. DetoffolSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
  3. Poksyla v. SundholmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  4. Ferch v. HillerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
  5. Dunkel v. RothSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API