Legal Opinion · Dissent
Peterson v. Board of Supervisors
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided April 2, 1937No. 31,023PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Dissent
Jurisdiction had not been acquired as to the appellant at the time the town board met. 1 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 2583; Thompson v. Town of Berlin, 87 Minn. 7, 91 N.W. 25. Although jurisdiction had not been acquired over appellant by service of notice, it is said that he waived such service. The statute, requiring service, is intended to be obeyed or else it would never have been enacted, and therefore it comes to the respondents as public officers, who act under it, as a command to comply with its terms. 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (2 ed. Supps. 1932, 1934) § 8954, note 91; Kipp v. Dawson, 31 Minn.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Southern Pacific Co. v. DentonSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Harkness v. HydeSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Jones v. . JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Finsilver, Still & Moss, Inc. v. Goldberg, Maas & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Hassler, Inc. v. ShawSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Peterson v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937