Minnesota Supreme Court, 1885

Restad v. Town of Scambler

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 8, 1885 · Berry

33 Minn. 515; 24 N.W. 197; 1885 Minn. LEXIS 134 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

J. W. Mason, for appellant., Clapp, Woodward & Cowie, 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 1886, 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

Schwede v. Town of Burnstown (Minn. 1886)

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

Berry, J.

Gen. St. 1878, c. 13, § 62, as amended in Laws 1881, c. 23, § 1, provides that where the amount of damages claimed on account of laying out a highway exceeds $100, an appeal “may be taken within 30 days to the district court,” “by filing in the office of the clerk * * * a bond, * * * and by the service of a written or printed notice of such appeal upon the chairman of the board of supervisors or the county commissioners.” The appeal is taken by *516filing the bond and by the service of the “notice of such appeal; ” that is to say, both are necessary to perfect it. But the notice required is not a notice that the appeal has been perfected, for this would' require it to state that it had itself been served, (which is absurd,) but a notice that the party appeals from the determination with which he is dissatisfied. Hence, although, in the natural order of things, it would be well to file the bond first, so that when the supervisors receive notice they can ascertain at once that the appeal is perfected, and attend to it, there is nothing in the statute which makes this indispensable. Nothing can be done in reference to the highway pending the right to appeal; and hence, if, within the 30 days allowed for the appeal, the bond is filed- and the notice served, there is no reason why the appeal should not be held to be legally perfected, whichever of these acts may be done first; and we hold accordingly.

The order dismissing the appeal is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

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