TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Turner v. Holleran

John W. Turner v. John Holleran

Turner v. Holleran, 11 Minn. 253 (1866)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1866
Judges
Wilson
Citations
11 Minn. 253
Headnotes
An appeal to the District Court from the assessment of damages made by commisioners appointed under Chapter 129 of the Public Statutes, only brings , before the court the question as to the propriety of the amount of damages awarded to the parties whose lands were overflowed. On such appeal, the defendant moved the court to set aside the order appointing the commissioners, which motion was denied, and from the order denying the motion, the defendant appealed. Held: That even if it is admitted that an appeal lies in such cases, it only lies after the entry of judgment.
Summary
The plaintiffs presented to the judge of the District Court for the county of Scott, a petition for the appointment of commissioners, under Chap. 129, Pub. Stat., to make assessment of the damages resulting from the erection of a mill dam on certain lands owned by them, and its maintainance forever, by overflowing or otherwise, to real estate not owned by them or damaged by consent. The petition specified the defendants as the owners of such lands. Upon such petition said judge appointed three commissioners, who, after due notice given the defendants, met pursuant to previous appointment. The defendants appeared at this meeting and presented to the commissioners certain objections, in writing, to any proceedings under said petition, and the order appointing said commissioners. The commissioners, after making examination, and hearing the allegations and testimony of the parties interested, made a separate assessment of the damages resulting to each, and filed their report. The defendants appealed to the District Court; when the appeal came on to be heard, the defendants moved upon the petition and papers on file, to* dismiss the petition, and to vacate the order appointing the commissioners. The court denied the motion, and the defendants appeal from the order denying the same, to this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wilson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Gowrt Wilson, Ch. J.

The appeal in this case, from the assessment made by the commissioners, only brought before the District Court, the question as to the propriety of *255 the amount of damages awarded to the parties whose lands were overflowed. Comp Stat. 818, -Secs. 10 and 13. That court, therefore, was right in denying the motion to set aside the order appointing commissioners.

But aside from this objection, the appeal must be dismissed, for the reason that the order appealed from is not appealable. It can only be claimed that an appeal from this order is authorized by the 6th Sub. of Sec. 11, Chap. Yl, Comp. Stats., which provides that an appeal may be taken from a final order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding. No legal question involved in the proceeding was definitely settled, nor was any substantial right of any of the parties affected by the order appealed from. The proceeding still remained pending in the court, and the right to review all the questions involved was unimpaired by the decision of said motion. The final order mentioned in this section refers to final orders in the nature of judgments, and if it is admitted that an appeal lies in such cases, it only lies alter the entry of judgment, where both the judgment and intermediate order are open for review.

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1871–1872: 21873–1874: 11875–1876: 11879–1880: 11881–1882: 11901–1902: 11915–1916: 11951–1952: 11953–1954: 118712026peak 1871 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Boom Co. v. Patterson98 U.S. 403 (1879)
  2. B. & O. Railroad v. P. W. & Ky. Railroad17 W. Va. 812 (1881)
  3. Myers v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.91 N.W. 1076 (Iowa 1902)
  4. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Stude Stude v204 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1953)
  5. City of Eufaula v. Ahrens159 P. 327 (Okla. 1916)
  6. Harding v. Funk8 Kan. 315 (1871)

Most recent

  1. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Stude Stude v204 F.2d 116 (8th Cir. 1953)
  2. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Kay107 F. Supp. 895 (S.D. Iowa 1952)
  3. City of Eufaula v. Ahrens159 P. 327 (Okla. 1916)
  4. Myers v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.91 N.W. 1076 (Iowa 1902)
  5. B. & O. Railroad v. P. W. & Ky. Railroad17 W. Va. 812 (1881)
  6. Boom Co. v. Patterson98 U.S. 403 (1879)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list