Kahlow v. Malz

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Kahlow v. Malz

185 N.W. 299, 150 Minn. 531, 1921 Minn. LEXIS 852

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 25, 1921

DocketNo. 22,563

StatusPublished

This text of 185 N.W. 299 (Kahlow v. Malz) 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.

Bluebook

Kahlow v. Malz, 185 N.W. 299, 150 Minn. 531, 1921 Minn. LEXIS 852 (Mich. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Action to determine the ownership of a strip of land 12 feet wide extend[532]*532ing along the boundary line between the farms of the respective parties-; one in effect to determine the boundary line. The cause was tried before the court without a jury and the court found the disputed strip belonged to defendant and was a part and parcel of his land. The only question presented on the appeal, one from an order denying a new trial, is whether the findings are sustained by the evidence. Our examination of the record leads to an affirmative answer. The evidence is conflicting, presenting an issue of fact for the trial court. We discover no sufficient reasons for interference.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Action to determine the ownership of a strip of land 12 feet wide extend[532]*532ing along the boundary line between the farms of the respective parties-; one in effect to determine the boundary line. The cause was tried before the court without a jury and the court found the disputed strip belonged to defendant and was a part and parcel of his land. The only question presented on the appeal, one from an order denying a new trial, is whether the findings are sustained by the evidence. Our examination of the record leads to an affirmative answer. The evidence is conflicting, presenting an issue of fact for the trial court. We discover no sufficient reasons for interference.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 N.W. 299, 150 Minn. 531, 1921 Minn. LEXIS 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahlow-v-malz-minn-1921.