Legal Opinion

Thiem v. Eckert

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 31, 1925No. Nos. 24,794, 24,795PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.

Plaintiffs, defendant and one Hoppenstedt owned land extending along all the shore line of a meandered lake. It was drained by a judicial ditch. They were desirous of dividing the lake bottom, not in irregular shaped tracts as the law provided, but upon govern ment division lines. They discussed the matter. One of their number, acting for all, consulted a lawyer and asked him to figure out a fair adjustment and draw the necessary paper and send to a certain bank. The lawyer did this. He prepared a partition deed meeting the requirements. He also prepared a very definite tabulated statement…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Harding v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Kramer v. GardnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  3. Brosseau v. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1917
  4. Thompson v. BryantMississippi Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Keith v. BriggsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Bakke v. KellerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
  2. Jimmerson v. Troy Seed Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
  3. Gustafson v. KoehlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  4. Bjornstad v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
  5. McCarthy's St. Louis Park Cafe, Inc. v. Minneapolis Baseball & Athletic Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API