Gilbert v. Emerson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court for St. Louis county, Moer, J., that the defendant George C. Howe is the owner of the unplatted space described in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtBuck, J.
This action was before this court in 1893, and is reported in 55 Minn. 254, 56 N. W. 818. Various controversies have arisen in regard to certain rights claimed by different persons under a plat called “Bice’s Point.” One Orrin Bice executed this plat, extending it a distance of several lots, blocks, streets, and alleys beyond the shore line, and into the water, but not to the point of navigability. A full statement of the facts in connection with this platting may be found by reference to the above report and to the case of Gilbert v. Eldridge, 47 Minn. 210, 49 N. W. 679. The plaintiff herein…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In re RobbinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Lamm v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- City of St. Louis v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- City of Noblesville v. Lake Erie & Western RailroadIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
- Rich v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- White v. JeffersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Gibson v. CarrollCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Bryant v. GustafsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Great Northern Railway Co. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Grant v. Oregon Navigation Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1907
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.