TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lejonquist v. Bukowski

ERICK O. LEJONQUIST v. JOHN BUKOWSKI AND ANOTHER

Lejonquist v. Bukowski, 182 N.W. 513 (Minn. 1921)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 22, 1921
Docket
No. 22,155
Judges
Cueiam
Citations
182 N.W. 513148 Minn. 4911921 Minn. LEXIS 578
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Boundary disputo — insufficient evidence of arbitration. Action to locate a disputed boundary line. The complaint averred that the location of it was in dispute and had never been determined. This allegation of the complaint was found true. The defense was that the line had been located by a survey or pursuant to an agreement. Plaintiff was not present when the survey was made, had no notice of it and had no opportunity to present his data as to the location of the line. Held: The evidence ■did not compel a finding of a common law arbitration and there was no claim of statutory arbitration. [Reporter.]
Summary
Action in the district court for Marshall county to locate and establish a boundary line between two farms. The answer alleged that on or about October 10, 1919, the parties agreed to employ Irving E. Quist, county surveyor of Marshall county, to survey the lands owned by them and locate the boundary line between them, that he did this, and that defendant erected a fence upon said line. The case was tried before G-rin’deland, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Prom an order denying their motion for amended findings or for a new. trial, defendants appealed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Cueiam

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

Pee Cueiam.

Action to locate a disputed boundary line between two farms. The defense was that the line had been determined and located .by a surveyor pursuant to an agreement between the parties. A refusal to find a location by agreement or, as claimed, by a common law arbitration, raises the only question in the appeal. The complaint averred that the location of the boundary line was in dispute and had never been determined. This paragraph of the complaint wás found true. That necessarily found the defense not proven, and there is no merit in the contention that the court omitted to make a finding upon the issues presented.

A statement or discussion of the evidence would be of no value to bench or bar. It is enough to say that, even though plaintiff admitted that he suggested the employment of a surveyor and agreed to pay half of his charges, the evidence is far from satisfactory that there was a clear and definite *492 agreement to submit to and abide by the line which such surveyor might locate. Furthermore, plaintiff had no notice of the survey, was not present when it was made, and had no opportunity to present his data or evidence as to the proper and original location of the line. In short,- the evidence is not such as to compel a finding of a common law arbitration, and there is no claim of location by statutory arbitration.

The order is affirmed,

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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