Minnesota Supreme Court, 1888

Young v. Village of Waterville

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided September 10, 1888 · Gilfillan

39 Minn. 196; 39 N.W. 97; 1888 Minn. LEXIS 73 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Peck é Brown, for appellant., Baxter, Townley é Gale, 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 1957, 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

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Sternitzke v. Donahue's Jewelers (Minn. 1957)
Bentson v. Berde's Food Center, Inc. (Minn. 1950)
Mueller v. City of Duluth (Minn. 1922)

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

In Shartle v. City of Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 284, (308,) it was determined that a municipal corporation, having exclusive control of streets within its limits, at ieast if the means of performing the duty are placed at its disposal, is obliged to keep' them in a safe condition, and is liable for injuries caused by unreasonable neglect of that duty. Within this duty a sidewalk is but part of a street. Furnell v. City of St. Paul, 20 Minn. 101, (117;) Bohen v. City of Waseca, 32 Minn. 176, (19 N. W. Rep. 730;) Noonan v. City of Stillwater, 33 Minn. 198, (22 N. W. Rep. 444.) The charter of defendant in various sections gives to it in detail all the powers over streets that a municipal corporation could exercise, such powers, being necessarily exclusive; and in respect to sidewalks gives the power to establish their width and grade, to determine the kind of material of which they shall be constructed, to cause them to be constructed or repaired by the abutting lot-owners at their own expense, *197and, in case of their failure to construct or repair them as required by the common council, to order the same to be done, and cause the expense thereof to be assessed upon and enforced against abutting lots. The provisions of the charter specially applicable to sidewalks are not different in substance from those of the defendant in Moore v. City of Minneapolis, 19 Minn. 258, (300,) in which case they were held sufficient to charge the defendant with the duty of keeping them in repair, and to impose upon it liability for neglect to do so. From the complaint it appears that the defendant had constructed or caused to be constructed the sidewalk where plaintiff was injured, but neglected to keep it in repair. The demurrer was properly overruled.

Order affirmed.

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