Minnesota Supreme Court, 1876

Conter v. St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 22, 1876 · Gileillan

22 Minn. 342; 1876 Minn. LEXIS 4 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Henry Hinds, for appellant., J. L. Macdonald, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1974, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gileillan, C. J.

This is a proceeding to ascertain the compensation to be paid for taking lands, consisting of a part of two lots in Shakopee, for public use for railroad *343purposes. Upon an appeal from the commissioners’ report to the court below, after a verdict there for $654.00, the court granted a new trial unless the appellant should consent to a modification of the verdict by abating $300.00 of it. From this order the appellant brings an appeal to this court. The report of the commissioners was filed August 5, 1873, and the compensation was to be assessed as of that date. On the trial the appellant, when testifying' in his own behalf, was asked by his counsel this question: “To what use are these lots adapted?” This question refers to the condition of the property at the time of the trial, and not at the time of the filing of the report, and for that reason was improper. It was objected to “as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial to prove value of lots in this proceeding,” which objection was overruled. The objection is certainly not very explicit, but is as much so as an objection which this court sustained in 8tees v. Leonard, 20 Minn. 494.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.