Scofield v. Scheaffer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The facts are stated in the opinion. From the second order of the district court for Grant county, Flaherty, J., directing the sheriff to remove the water gates in a certain mill pond in case the plaintiff and his attorney did not remove them, and reduce the height of water to the extent that it was reduced by the sheriff on October 4, 1907, plaintiff appealed.
1Per curiam
This case grew out of Scofield v. Scheaffer, supra, page 123, 116 N. W. 210. The judgment in that case was entered on October 4, 1907, and on the same day an appeal was taken by defendant to the supreme court by the service of the notice of appeal and bond. Thereafter an attempt was made to carry out the directions contained in the judgment by opening the gates in the dam. The defendant replaced the gates, and after a hearing on an order to show cause why he should not open them again the court made a further order directing the defendant or the sheriff to execute the judgment. No supersedeas…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Briggs v. SheaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Scofield v. ScheafferSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- State ex rel. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
3Cited by5 opinions
- Blythe v. KujawaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Holmes v. HolmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Marque Plumbing, Inc. v. BarrisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Marque Plumbing, Inc. v. BarrisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Marque Plumbing, Inc. v. BarrisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986