Oxborough v. Boesser
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action under Gen. St. 1878, c. 18, § 7, in the municipal court of Minneapolis, to recover from defendant double the value of a portion of a partition fence. Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff for double the value of the fence, as determined by the supervisors, and for double the supervisors’ fees. The case is stated in the opinion. The demand by plaintiff was not sufficient.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action under Gen. St. 1878, c. 18, § 7, in the municipal court of Minneapolis, to recover from defendant double the value of a portion of a partition fence. Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff for double the value of the fence, as determined by the supervisors, and for double the supervisors’ fees. The case is stated in the opinion. The demand by plaintiff was not sufficient. Abbott v. Wood, 22 Me. 541; Whittier v. Johnson, 38 N. H. 160. The court erred in not allowing defendant to prove that the fence erected is not a legal fence, that the adjudication as…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
This appeal calls in question certain proceedings under Gen. St. 1878, c. 18, which relates to partition fences. Notwithstanding sundry blunders and discrepancies, it is quite apparent that the proceedings were in fact and in intention instituted and conducted under sections 6 and 7 of that chapter. The pleadings and evidence show that plaintiff and defendant were owners of adjoining lands inclosed with fences; that, in compliance with the requirements of sections 6 and 7, a majority of the proper supervisors duly assigned to defendant his share of the partition fence to which this action…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Rowell v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1905
- County of Martin v. KampertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Gilson v. MunsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Williams v. ScrawderDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 1952
- Lanpher v. NygardCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013