Gilfillan v. Schmidt
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county for an injunction restraining defendants from maintaining a ditch across plaintiff’s lands, and requiring defendants to fill up said ditch. The case was tried before Hicks, J., whose findings of fact are referred to in the opinion, and who found as conclusion of law that plaintiff was entitled to the relief demanded.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Hennepin county for an injunction restraining defendants from maintaining a ditch across plaintiff’s lands, and requiring defendants to fill up said ditch. The case was tried before Hicks, J., whose findings of fact are referred to in the opinion, and who found as conclusion of law that plaintiff was entitled to the relief demanded. From an order, Russell, J., denying a motion for a new trial, defendants Anton Schmidt, Mathias Ciasen, and Henry Schmidt appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The findings of the trial court are very long, mainly descriptive of the situation, and largely consisting of statements of what may be called “evidentiary facts.” For this reason it is somewhat difficult to state wherein they are, and wherein they are not, sustained by the evidence. An examination of the record, however, shows that there is no real conflict in the evidence. It discloses substantially the following state of facts:
The lands of the two defendants Schmidt constituted a watershed, which naturally drained from the east, north, and west into a large marsh, slough, or pond,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sheehan v. FlynnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Peck v. . GoodberlettNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
3Cited by10 opinions
- Enderson v. KelehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Thompson v. AndrewsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917
- Shaw v. WardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Oftelie v. Town of HammondSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Hartle v. NeighbauerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.