Minnesota Supreme Court, 1909

State ex rel. Hassing v. Quinn

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 25, 1909

108 Minn. 528; 121 N.W. 898; 1909 Minn. LEXIS 759 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Albert R. Allen, for plaintiff., E. H. Nicholas and Dean d Palmer, for defendants.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Argyle v. Bonneville Irr. Dist. (Utah 1929)

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

Per Curiam.

Conceding that relator properly raised the question by appearing specially and objecting to the petition, there is no merit in the claim that the description of the lands was defective. A description of the lands proposed to be drained is all the statute requires. This does not mean a description by subdivision to correspond with individual ownership; and if an entire section is within the-district, it may be described as a section, although the subdivisions are owned by different persons.

Writ discharged.

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