Vanderburgh v. City of Minneapolis

114 N.W. 1134, 103 Minn. 515, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 750
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided December 20, 1907·No. Nos. 15,497—(163)·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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

Vanderburgh v. City of Minneapolis, 114 N.W. 1134, 103 Minn. 515, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 750 (Mich. 1907).

114 N.W. 1134 (Vanderburgh v. City of Minneapolis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holford v. Crowe
161 N.W. 213 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1917)