Anderson v. Pillsbury
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Samuel A. Anderson and others petitioned the district court for Itasca county for the construction of a certain ditch designated as Judicial Ditch No. 2. The order establishing the ditch was set aside and the engineer directed to file an amended report. The matter was thereafter heard by Stanton, J., who denied the petition. From the order denying the petition, petitioners appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
This is an appeal from an order refusing to establish a judicial ditch, *333“for the reason that the proposed ditch will not be of public utility or benefit, and that the estimated benefits to be derived from the construction of said work will not exceed the total cost thereof.”. The court had no authority to order the construction of the ditch, unless it found that the ditch would be of public benefit, and also that the special benefits to be derived from it would exceed the total cost of the project. The petitioners contend that the evidence established the affirmative of both these…
2Cited by1 opinion
- County of Itasca v. RalphSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920