Dinehart & Weck Security Co. v. Weld
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Din chart & Week Security Company, Peder Larson and H. P. Johanson, deeming themselves aggrieved by the order of the county board of Murray county determining the amount of benefits to their lands from the construction of County Ditch No. 67, demanded a jury trial. The appeals were heard by Nelson, J., and a jury which assessed the benefits. From orders denying their motions for new trials, demandants appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
County Ditch No. 67 of the county of Murray was duly established and the report of the viewers was confirmed on April 1,1920. Three landowners appealed to the district court and demanded that the Amount of benefits accruing to their respective lands be determined by a jury. By consent the three appeals were tried together before the same jury who returned a verdict determining the amount of benefits to each parcel of land specified in the appeals. The three appellants made a motion for a new trial and appeal from an order denying it.
Several exceptions are taken to the charge of the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hardin v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Railroad Co. v. SchurmeirSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Lammers v. NissenNebraska Supreme Court · 1876
- Heald v. YumiskoNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Aastad v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
- Gee v. County of RenvilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Michael L. Pogreba v. Lorraine Pogreba, Janet BowenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2024