Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

104 Minn. 127

Scofield v. Scheaffer

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 24, 1908

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1908-04-24

The facts are stated in the opinion. From the second order of the district court for Grant county, Flaherty, J., directing the sheriff to remove the water gates in a certain mill pond in case the plaintiff and his attorney did not remove them, and reduce the height of water to the extent that it was reduced by the sheriff on October 4, 1907, plaintiff appealed.

Relies on State ex rel. St. Paul & Duluth Railroad v. Young · Briggs v. Shea

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1908-04-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1986

4 state decisions

20190819101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This case grew out of Scofield v. Scheaffer, supra, page 123, 116 N. W. 210. The judgment in that case was entered on October 4, 1907, and on the same day an appeal was taken by defendant to the supreme court by the service of the notice of appeal and bond. Thereafter an attempt was made to carry out the directions contained in the judgment by opening the gates in the dam. The defendant replaced the gates, and after a hearing on an order to show cause why he should not open them again the court made a further order directing the defendant or the sheriff to execute the judgment. No supersedeas bond was filed, and the district court therefore retained jurisdiction for the purpose of executing the judgment. Briggs v. Shea, 48 Minn. 218, 50 N. W. 1037; State v. Young, 44 Minn. 76, 46 N. W. 204. An ordinary cost bond, such as authorized by R. L,.-1905, § 4366, conditioned upon the payment of costs and charges which may be awarded against the appellant upon the appeal, does not operate as a supersedeas bond.

¶2The order of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

/104/minn/127 · .json · Public domain