St. Paul & Duluth Railroad v. Village of Hinckley
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Original o-rder of this court to Robert C. Saunders, attorney, and Hans Holranson, street commissioner, of the defendant Tillage of Hinckley, to show cause April 6, 1893, why they should not be punished for contempt in disobeying a temporary injunction of the District Court pending an appeal to this court.
Read the full summary
Original o-rder of this court to Robert C. Saunders, attorney, and Hans Holranson, street commissioner, of the defendant Tillage of Hinckley, to show cause April 6, 1893, why they should not be punished for contempt in disobeying a temporary injunction of the District Court pending an appeal to this court. The plaintiff, the St. Paul & Duluth Railroad Company, commenced an action in the District Court of Tine County to restrain the defendant, the Tillage of Hinckley, from opening and improving a street of the village across the tracks of its railroad, and obtained a temporary injunction. That…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
This respondent Saunders was the attorney for the defendant, the village of Hinckley, in an action pending in the district court. The cause was tried, and the court made its findings of fact therein, and directed judgment to he entered in favor of the defendant, to the effect, among other things, that a temporary injunction which had been granted in favor of the plaintiff should be dissolved. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which was refused, and an appeal from the order of refusal was taken to this court, and the stay bond provided in such cases by 1878 G. S. ch. 86, § 10, was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Briggs v. SheaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Exley v. BerryhillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- State ex rel. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Reitan v. GoebelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
3Cited by2 opinions
- Adelman v. OnischukSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- Adelman v. OnischukSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965