Legal Opinion

Pigeon River Lumber Co. v. McDougall

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 5, 1926No. Nos. 25,489, 25,500PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.

Two actions in partition were tried together. The court found that partition in kind was to the prejudice of the owners, and that the best interest of all required the lands to be sold. From the order refusing to modify the findings or grant a new trial the defendants appeal.

The lands involved are bounded on the north by Pigeon river, except as hereinafter noted. The one action concerns two fractional government lots less than 80 acres in area, namely, lots 1 and 3 in section 19, T. 64, R. 6, plaintiff being the owner of an undivided two-thirds, and defendants McDougall the one-third. Lot 1…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Watford Oil & Gas Co. v. ShipmanIllinois Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Croston v. MaleWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Hall v. VernonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. PrattSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
  5. Gulf Refining Co. v. HayneSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1915

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Schnell v. SchnellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Swogger v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
  3. Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Beebout v. BeeboutCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  5. Neumann v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2018

1 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