Hrdlicka v. Haberman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Steele county to recover $500. The answer alleged that the land entered was part of a public highway and the work done by defendants was done under the direction of the board of supervisors of the township. The case was tried before Childress, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for $75. From an order denying their motion for a new trial, defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
Action in trespass, in which the defense was that the locus in quo was a public highway which defendants graded at the direction of the town supervisors. The decision was in favor of plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
The court signed lengthy findings; the substance of those of controlling weight are: That the board of supervisors, in July, 1874, laid out a public road on the north section line of section 7 in the town of Somerset, Steele county. As described in the order the road, at a point *12610 chains east of the northwest corner of the section, also branched out from the section line in a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Marchand v. Town of Maple GroveSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Arndt v. ThomasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Anker v. Chicago Great Western RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. AllisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- McCasland v. Township of WalworthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
3Cited by6 opinions
- Cincinnati Time Recorder Co. v. LoeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Adjustment Service Bureau, Inc. v. BuelowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1936
- Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- Township of Villard v. HotingCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
- Markert v. MageeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.