Bilsborrow v. Pierce
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Wilkin county to restrain defendants, county commissioners and county auditor of that county, from constructing a certain public ditch. A motion to vacate the temporary restraining order and to dismiss the action was heard before Flaherty, ]., who denied the motion and granted a temporary injunction. From an order denying defendants’ motion and the order granting a temporary injunction, defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtJaggard, J.
The plaintiffs and respondents owned lands in Wilkin and Clay counties. The appellants and defendants, as the county commissioners *272and the auditor of Wilkin county, instituted proceedings under chapter 230, p. 303, Laws 1905, for draining certain lands. The complaint alleged that the lands of the plaintiffs would be seriously and permanently ■damaged by the discharge of water thereon by means of the proposed •ditch, and that other outlets suggested would furnish better drainage .at no greater expense. None of the plaintiffs were named anywhere in the proceedings, nor were their lands…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Whittaker v. StangvickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
- State ex rel. Dorgan v. FiskNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
- Stone v. Little Yellow Drainage DistrictWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Minnesota Sugar Co. v. IversonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Stees v. KranzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Petraborg v. ZontelliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- State ex rel. Roberts v. HenseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Slingerland v. ConnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Illinois Life Insurance v. City of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1927
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.