Minnesota Supreme Court, 1932

In re Petition of Degriselles

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided March 11, 1932 · LORING, J.

241 N.W. 590; 185 Minn. 495 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

M.J. Meeker , for appellant. Evans Evans , 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 1937, 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

Bird v. Johnson (Minn. 1937)

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

¹ Reported in 241 N.W. 590. This was a proceeding to detach 105 acres of land from the city of Pipestone. The petitioner's land is used exclusively for agricultural purposes, but part of it is subdivided into three lots of ten, eight, and ten acres each. Other lots of similar character are included in the plat which subdivided a part of the tract here involved. There is a substantial area of unplatted land between petitioner's property and the built up part of the city. Two of petitioner's lots are 330 feet wide, and the third is 284 feet wide. They are all 1,320 feet long. The rest of petitioner's property has never been subdivided. The trial court ordered the land detached, and the sole question raised by appellant city is whether the lots in question constitute platted land within the meaning of G. S. 1923 (1 Mason, 1927) § 1720, which authorizes the detachment of areas of more than 40 acres of unplatted agricultural lands from cities of less than 10,000 inhabitants. *Page 496

We are of the opinion that the word "unplatted" as used in that statute was intended by the legislature to describe lands not platted for urban purposes. The mere fact that land, used and suitable only for exclusively agricultural purposes has been subdivided by a plat into tracts of eight or ten acres suitable for certain types of rural agriculture does not make it platted land in the urban sense. We think it quite apparent that the legislature was using the word platted or "unplatted" in the urban sense of the word where lots are platted of suitable size for city or town purposes. In this view we are supported by In re Smith's Estate, 51 Minn. 316, 53 N.W. 711, in which Mr. Justice Mitchell, for homestead purposes, distinguished between rural property, where the buildings were ancillary to the use of the land, and urban property, where the land is ancillary to the use of the buildings. See also National Bank v. Banholzer, 69 Minn. 24, 71 N.W. 919; and State ex rel. Chase v. Minn. Tax Comm. 135 Minn. 205,160 N.W. 498. We are disposed to follow that rule in construing the statute now before us. Any other would lead to absurd results.

The judgment is affirmed.

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