Minnesota Supreme Court, 1896

Gorton v. Town of Forest City

Gorton v. Town of Forest City
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 24, 1896 · Buck
67 Minn. 36; 69 N.W. 478; 1896 Minn. LEXIS 337 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Peterson <& Foster, for appellant., John T. Byrnes, for respondents.

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 1908, 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

Gorton v. Town of Forest City

Cases that cite this one

5 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

BUCK, J.

This action was commenced for the purpose of restraining the defendants from opening a public highway. Upon the verified complaint, a temporary injunction was accordingly issued. The defendants appeared, and served a verified answer, and therein alleged certain facts, which, if true, would justify the court in dissolving the injunction. Plaintiff served- a reply, the contents of which were stated upon information and belief, and his verification was to the same effect. The writ of injunction was dissolved and set aside, upon the ground that it was wrongfully obtained, and was issued without reason or sufficient grounds. The issues involved in the-action are yet untried, and, if the plaintiff has suffered damages, he is not without a remedy. But the granting, refusing, or dissolving *37a temporary injunction pendente lite rests necessarily in judicial discretion; and, unless there has been an abuse of such discretion, this court will not interfere, especially where the prosecution of an enterprise of a public nature is involved. Myers v. Duluth T. R. Co., 53 Minn. 335, 55 N. W. 140.

Order affirmed.

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