Hanson v. Fergus Falls National Bank & Trust Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentKnutson, Justice
I am unable to agree with the majority in this case. While I have no quarrel with the discussion relating to the nature of the right to hunt on land of another, it seems to me that in the application of the rule in the opinion of the majority they have ignored both the nature of a banking corporation and the essential characteristics of the right here involved as applied to such corporation. At the outset, it must be clear that the right to hunt and take wild animals has many attributes which distinguish it from the right to take coal, wood, oil, or other minerals from the land of another.…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Aronovitch v. LevySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1953
- Dartnell v. BidwellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1916
- Bingham v. SaleneOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Council v. . SanderlinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Romans v. NadlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.