County of Le Sueur v. Globe Indemnity Co.
This text of 184 N.W. 677 (County of Le Sueur v. Globe Indemnity Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
On December 11, 1911, Henry Kritzer and ten others filed with the auditor of Le -Sueur county a petition for a public ditch. On December 13 the auditor issued a notice of a hearing upon said petition on January 4, 1912. The petitioner’s bond was filed January 4, 1912. On May 13, 1912, the report of the engineer and of viewers having been filed, the auditor gave notice of a final hearing on June 7, 1912. On May 14 the auditor mathed a copy of the notice to one of the landowners affected. On May 16 the publication of the notice was commenced.
There were many landowners affected. Their names appeared in the viewer’s report, and the auditor knew their postoffice addresses, but he mathed the notice to but one.
On the hearing, an order establishing the ditch was made. The contract for constructing part of it was let to Moffatt & Herrick. To secure performance of their contract, these parties gave a bond with defendant as surety.
Moffatt & Herrick entered úpon the performance of their contract. In April, 1913, they claimed that the proceeding was void, because of failure of the county auditor to mail notice to the property owners affected, and requested that defects in the proceeding be corrected.
[122]*122On May 7, 1913, the auditor issued notice of a new hearing to be held June 16. This notice was published, posted and mathed. On the hearing, the county board declined to take action and the contractors abandoned their work. This action is brought to recover the damages sustained. The court found for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
But this notice might be waived by the landowners. If all appeared at the hearing, no one could complain of the want of notice and the proceeding would be to all intents and purposes regular. The statute makes the order of the county board establishing the ditch prima facie evidence of the regularity of all the proceedings prior to the making of such order. Laws 1905, p. 336, c. 230, § 48. See Geib v. County of Morrison, 119 Minn. 261, 138 N. W. 24, 9 A.L.R. 839. This prima facie evidence was not rebutted.
[123]*123
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
184 N.W. 677, 150 Minn. 120, 1921 Minn. LEXIS 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-le-sueur-v-globe-indemnity-co-minn-1921.