Pye v. City of Mankato
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 1893, 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
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Nelson v. Logan City (Utah 1943)
- Town of French Lick v. Teaford (Ind. Ct. App. 1921)
- McCarty v. Town of Mountain View (Tenn. 1916)
- Gaustad v. City of Enderlin (N.D. 1912)
- Kelly v. City of Butte (Mont. 1911)
- Giuricevic v. City of Tacoma (Wash. 1910)
- Brown v. Salt Lake City (Utah 1908)
- Moran v. City of St. Paul (Minn. 1893)
- Ray v. City of St. Paul (Minn. 1890)
- Muffley v. Village of St. Edward (Neb. 1923)
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
This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint charges the city with liability on account of the raising of the grade of certain streets, so as to form embankments obstructing a water-course which crossed the same, by reason of which, and because the gutters provided for carrying off the water were insufficient for that purpose, water was collected and discharged upon the plaintiff’s premises. The only ground upon which the defendant relies in support of its demurrer i$ that section 8, subchapter 8, chapter 73, Sp. Laws 1881, found on page
We are of the opinion, as was the learned judge of the district court, that this statute is not applicable to a case of this kind. The words J‘any defect in the condition of. any bridge, street, sidewalk, or thoroughfare,” refer to defects in such public ways or structures as such, and with regard to their usefulness and safety for the purposes of travel. The language is plainly selected with reference to injuries caused by dangerous conditions of that kind, and there is nothing suggesting that it was intended to embrace injuries resulting to adjacent property from conditions which do not render the street or highway defective as such. The injury here complained of has no natural or necessary relation to the fact that the places where the alleged acts were done were public streets.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.