Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Town Ditch No. 1

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 22, 1940No. Nos. 32,598, 32,599, 32,600, 32,601Published

1Dissent

We find ourselves in disagreement with the views expressed by Mr. Justice Stone and therefore set out the following reasons for our views.

A "pothole" described by appellant Larson, owner of the 160-acre farm adjoining that of Busse, as "probably 1,400 feet long and probably 500 feet wide" and containing about ten acres, is sought to be drained under the provisions of our township ditch law. It is "practically level" land consisting of a "kind of peaty" soil "suitable for raising crops if drained." While it is "very seldom soft and wet," it has not been plowed, "because if we have a heavy rain…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Gray v. Reclamation District No. 1500California Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Jordan v. City of BenwoodWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Sheehan v. FlynnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
  4. Lien v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
  5. Smith v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1905

8 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