Dressen v. Board of County Commissioners
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 1922, 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.
- Lee v. County of Jackson (Minn. 1922)
- Board of Water Commissioners v. Roselawn Cemetery (Minn. 1917)
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
The appellant here appealed from an order of the board of county commissioners of Nicollet county establishing a public ditch. The trial of the appeal in the district court having resulted adversely to the appellants, one of them now appeals to this court. The ditch in question is the same one referred to in Witty v. Board of Commrs., supra, page 286; and, in view of the decision in that
The appeal to the district court was taken under Laws 1887, c. 97, § 11 (GL S. 1894, $ 7803); and the main question here is whether such an appeal brings up for review the question of the authority of the county commissioners to establish a ditch so as to drain a public meandered lake. This the appellants sought to do by a motion in the district court to dismiss the proceedings. Of course, the right of appeal, both as to its existence and to its scope, is purely statutory. After examining the section of statute referred to, our conclusion is that the question cannot be raised on appeal, but that the remedy is by certiorari, or by an action fbr an injunction. The point goes, not to the want of jurisdiction of the county commissioners to institute the proceedings to establish a ditch, but to their having exceeded their authority by establishing a ditch so as to drain a public meandered lake.
What has been said likewise applies to several other points attempted to be raised on the appeal. It is also to be observed that many of the grounds upon which the appellants moved the district court to dismiss the proceedings have nothing in the record to support them. Appellants’ second request was, in effect, given in the general charge by the special questions submitted to the jury. Moreover, the last part of the request, by the use of the words “public necessity,” was calculated to mislead, rather than to enlighten, the jury. The third request, as to the burden of proof, was properly refused, because it erroneously stated that the burden was on the county to prove each and all of the facts, any one of which would’ have justified the county commissioners in establishing the ditch. We find nothing in any of the other assignments of error worthy of special notice.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.