Legal Opinion
Gove v. County of Murray
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 21, 1924No. 24,096PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
■Dibell, J.
The respondent, the engineer in Judicial Ditch No. 4 of Murray county, applied to the district court for the allowance of his claim for services in connection with the ditch. There was judgment in his favor and the county appeals.
The subject matter of this controversy has been before the court twice. In State v. District Court, 138 Minn. 204, 164 N. W. 815, it was held that the portion of G. S. 1913, § 5571, providing for the allowance of the fees of the engineer, without notice to the county, was void for want of due process. In view of the dissent, and the memorandum opinion…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Flour City Fuel & Transfer Co. v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- State ex rel. County of Murray v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- State ex rel. Kohler Contracting Co. v. HansenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- Gove v. County of MurraySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
- Tompkins v. ForrestalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. HolmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Kalman v. County of GrantSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Swift County Bank v. County of TraverseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925