Bilsborrow v. Pierce
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district conrt for Wilkin county to restrain the construction of a certain ditcb. After the former appeal, reported in 101 Minn. 271, 112 N. W. 274, tbe case was tried before Flaberty, J., who made findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered judgment restraining the defendants. Subsequently, on motion, the conclusions of law were modified and judgment entered thereon modifying the former judgment. From the modified judgment, plaintiffs appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
This action was commenced- in the district court of the county of Wilkin to restrain the defendants, county commissioners and auditor, from constructing a public ditch over the lands of the plaintiffs. This is the second appeal in the case, and is from the modified judgment of the court. The first appeal was by the defendants, and from an order granting a temporary injunction against the construction of the ditch pending the action. The order was affirmed by this court. See 101 Minn. 271, 112 N. W. 274, to which reference is here made for a statement of the allegations of the complaint.
One of…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Arnold v. WainwrightSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
- Halvorsen v. Orinoco Mining Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Nye v. KahlowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- State ex rel. Wickstrom v. Board of County Commissioners of Isanti CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Bilsborrow v. PierceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lundblad v. EricksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Harcum v. BensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- In Re Petition of LippmannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1957
- Nelson v. AumanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1945
- In Re Estate of FirleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.