Legal Opinion

Little Falls Water-Power Co. v. Mahan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 9, 1897No. Nos. 10,608—(193)PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal by defendant Henry Belin from an order of the district court for Morrison county, Searle, J., refusing to vacate its decision and denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtColrins, J.

This was an action to declare a forfeiture of a deed in which was a condition subsequent, and to eject defendants from the premises therein described. The defendant Belin alone answered, and he appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial, made after the court below, on a trial of the issues, had filed findings of fact, with its conclusions of law, that plaintiff was entitled to a judgment that it was the owner of the premises, was entitled to possession, and should recover the same, together with $300 damages for their detention.

The plaintiff was the grantor in the deed referred…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Minneapolis & St. Cloud Railroad v. Duluth & Winnipeg RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Village of Hibbing v. Commissioner of TaxationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  2. Davidson v. Minnesota Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  3. Consolidated School District No. 102 v. WalterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
  4. Seeck v. JakelOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  5. East Tennessee & W. N. C. R. v. GougeCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1947

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API