Conklin v. County Commissioners

13 Minn. 454
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided July 15, 1868·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Wilson, Ch. J.

By the Court. I think the plaintiff has not a right to prosecute this action. He does not show or pretend that he is damnified more, or otherwise, than any other resident of the town near or over whose land the road is laid, or who ordinarily travels on the road. The change complained of is'not on or near his land. The injury — if any — is to the community, not to him in his individnal capacity, and it is for them, not for him, to redress it; and the remedy pointed out must be pursued.

If one member of the community in- his individual capacity has a remedy for such an'injury, so has every other member. To permit this would be intolerable, and contrary to all precedent or reason.

This objection cannot properly be passed over in silence.

Writ is quashed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Conklin v. County Commissioners, 13 Minn. 454 (Mich. 1868).

13 Minn. 454 (Conklin v. County Commissioners) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bellows v. Ericson
46 N.W.2d 654 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1951)
State Ex Rel. United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. Enersen
42 N.W.2d 25 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1950)
Juster v. Grossman
38 N.W.2d 832 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1949)
O'Neill v. Kallsen
24 N.W.2d 715 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1946)
Bennett v. Wheatley
154 Ga. 591 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Lord v. County Commissioners
75 A. 126 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1909)
Stokes v. Wall
37 S.E. 383 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
City of Chicago v. Union Building Ass'n
102 Ill. 379 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1882)
Hodgman v. Chicago & St. Paul Railway Co.
20 Minn. 48 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1873)