Pye v. City of Mankato
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Blue Barth ■county to recover damages to a lot on Washington street in Mankato, resulting from the acts of defendant in collecting water and ■discharging it upon plaintiff’s lot. A jury was waived, and the action tried before Severance, J., who ordered judgment for plaintiff. A new trial was refused, and the defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The ground on which a new trial was asked, and the only point urged in this court, was that “the decision of the court is not justified by the evidence, and is contrary to law.” As counsel for appellant nowhere indicates wherein the decision is not justified by the evidence, we shall assume that the findings of fact are supported by the evidence; thus leaving as the only question for consideration whether these findings justify the conclusion of law that *374plaintiff is entitled to recover. We shall assume, in favor of appellant, that this was “surface water,” and not a “water-course.” Indeed,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ashley v. City of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- O'Brien v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
- McClure v. City of Red WingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Henderson v. City of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Weir v. St. Paul, Stillwater & Taylor's Falls RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Sheehan v. FlynnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- City of Chickasha v. LooneySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Brandenberg v. ZeiglerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1901
- Davis v. City of CrawfordsvilleIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Joyce v. Village of JanesvilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.