State ex rel. Hassing v. Quinn

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State ex rel. Hassing v. Quinn

121 N.W. 898, 108 Minn. 528, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 759

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided June 25, 1909·No. Nos. 16,109—(33)·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Conceding that relator properly raised the question by appearing specially and objecting to the petition, there is no merit in the claim that the description of the lands was defective. A description of the lands proposed to be drained is all the statute requires. This does not mean a description by subdivision to correspond with individual ownership; and if an entire section is within the-district, it may be described as a section, although the subdivisions are owned by different persons.

Writ discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

Conceding that relator properly raised the question by appearing specially and objecting to the petition, there is no merit in the claim that the description of the lands was defective. A description of the lands proposed to be drained is all the statute requires. This does not mean a description by subdivision to correspond with individual ownership; and if an entire section is within the-district, it may be described as a section, although the subdivisions are owned by different persons.

Writ discharged.

State ex rel. Hassing v. Quinn, 121 N.W. 898, 108 Minn. 528, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 759 (Mich. 1909).

Pincite

121 N.W. 898 (State ex rel. Hassing v. Quinn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related