Legal Opinion

Erickson v. Pomerank

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 7, 1896No. Nos. 10,238-(71)PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Wright county, Russell, J., denying a motion for a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.

This is an action to recover damages for the deepening of a natural water course by the defendant, as plaintiff alleged, by reason of which water in increased and injurious quantities was discharged upon his land. The answer denied that defendant lowered the channel of the water course, and also, that plaintiff had sustained any damages in the premises; and alleged that plaintiff dammed the water course, and, when the obstruction was removed, the water held back by the dam flowed upon plaintiff’s land, and, if any more than the usual and natural flow of water came upon his land, it was caused…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Jacobs v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  2. Meixner v. BueckslerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  3. Loftsgaarden v. ReilingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  4. Jacobs v. Farmland Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985

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

Powered by the Exa API