Bingenheimer v. Diamond Iron Mining Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Magney, Justice.
The applicants 2 in this proceeding to register title 3 to the SE % of NE % of section two, township 55 north, range 25 west of the fourth principal meridian, in Itasca county, Minnesota, appeal from the decree of registration adjudging that they are owners in fee simple of the tract described, excepting the land underlying a body of water located on the tract and known as Pond A, lying and being below the ordinary low-water mark of the pond on May 11, 1858 (elevation 1310.5, sea-level datum).
In the registration proceeding the state was made a party defendant. It filed an…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Shively v. BowlbySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- The Daniel BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Barney v. KeokukSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lienhard v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- Youngstown Mines Corp. v. ProutSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- State v. AdamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- State v. BollenbachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Northern National Bank v. Northern Minnesota National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.