Schuster v. Supervisors of Lemond
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Schuster appealed to the district court for Steele county from an order of the supervisors of the town of Lemond in that county, vacating a certain highway.
Read the full summary
Schuster appealed to the district court for Steele county from an order of the supervisors of the town of Lemond in that county, vacating a certain highway. In his application to the district, court, he sets forth that this highway is an old and well-travelled road, running from his farm (on which he resides) directly to the school-house of the district in which his land is situated, and only about eighty rods distant, and by reason of the discontinuance of the road, he will be compelled to go a distance of one and one-half miles further to reach such school-house; and he further shows that…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
The only question here is the right to appeal to the district court from the order of town supervisors laying out, altering, or discontinuing a road, under the provisions of Gen. St. 1878, c. IS. The district court denied the right to this appellant, and dismissed his appeal. That there is a right of appeal in such cases (to be taken to the district court if the damages claimed exceed $100) was decided by this court in Gorman v. Supervisors, etc., 20 Minn. 892. The only question left is, is appellant entitled to claim such appeal ? The language of the statute (section 59) is: “Any person who…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Vacation of Part of Town of HibbingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- In re HullSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Hurst v. Town of MartinsburgSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Anderson v. County of MeekerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- State ex rel. Board of County Commissioners v. BartonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.