Vanderburgh v. City of Minneapolis
This text of 114 N.W. 1134 (Vanderburgh v. City of Minneapolis) 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
Action to recover damages for the vacation of certain streets in the defendant city, whereby the plaintiff’s lots, as he claims, were depreciated in value. Verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff made a motion for a new trial upon four distinct grounds and twenty seven specifications of error. He appealed from the order denying his motion for a new trial. I-Iis only assignment of error in this court is in these words: “The court below erred in 'denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.” The defendant makes the claim in its brief that the assignment is wholly insufficient to raise any questions as- to the correctness of the order appealed from and for this reason declines to discuss them. The case was submitted on briefs by both parties. The defendant’s claim must be sustained in accordance with the uniform decisions of this court. Dunnell, Minn. Pr. § 1796. Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
114 N.W. 1134, 103 Minn. 515, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanderburgh-v-city-of-minneapolis-minn-1907.