Johnson v. Skillman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This action was brought in the district court for Goodhue county, in 1880, to compel the defendants to remove a certain mill-dam situate on their own lands, or so much thereof as should be necessary to prevent the flowing of plaintiff’s lands. The defendants claimed that under an agreement with one Haynes, the plaintiff’s grantor, they had the right to maintain the dam so long as the flouring mill connected with it should be kept and operated as a custom mill.
Read the full summary
This action was brought in the district court for Goodhue county, in 1880, to compel the defendants to remove a certain mill-dam situate on their own lands, or so much thereof as should be necessary to prevent the flowing of plaintiff’s lands. The defendants claimed that under an agreement with one Haynes, the plaintiff’s grantor, they had the right to maintain the dam so long as the flouring mill connected with it should be kept and operated as a custom mill. The action was tried before Crosby, J., who found the facts in reference to the alleged agreement as follows: In 1878, fie defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
The parol agreement set forth in the decision of the trial court created no easement in the land of plaintiff, but took effect as a parol license only. A license creates no estate in lands. It is a mere power or authority, founded on personal confidence, not assignable, and revocable at pleasure, unless subsidiary to a valid grant, to the beneficial enjoyment of which its exercise is necessary» or unless executed under such circumstances as to warrant the interposition of equity, This is the result of the best-considered cases. The doctrine of the early cases, which converted an executed…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Cook v. StearnsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- Wheeler v. . ReynoldsNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Mumford v. WhitneyNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Wiseman v. . LucksingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Woodward v. SeelyIllinois Supreme Court · 1849
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Nowlin Lumber Co. v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
- Bowman v. BowmanOregon Supreme Court · 1899
- Thoemke v. FiedlerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Little v. WillfordSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.