Cited by

Westerson v. State, 207 Minn. 412, 416 , ; Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , ; Lindstrom v. County of Ramsey, 136 Minn. 46 , .

Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , .

It is not always true that “in the matter of the drainage and disposition of surface waters, a town has the same rights and is subject to the same liabilities as an individual.” As used in Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275, 277 , , and Sandmeier v. Town of St.

As used in Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , 277 , 80 N.W.

See also Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , ; Sandmeier v. Town of St.

Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , .

Nobs v. City of Minneapolis, 22 Minn. 159 ; Peters v. Town of Fergus Falls, 35 Minn. 549 , ; Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , ; Gunnerus v. Town of Spring Prairie, 91 Minn. 473 , ; Halvorson v. Town of Moranville, 137 Minn. 349 , *132 ; Kiefer v. County of Ramsey, 140 Minn. 143 , .

515; Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , ; Reick v. Schamanski, 117 Minn. 25 , ; Hopkins v. Taylor, 128 Minn. 511 , .

632 : Jungblum v. Minneapolis, N. U. & S. W. R. Co., supra; Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , ; Fossum v. Chicago, M. & St.

In all drainage propositions some inconvenience, and possibly some damage, must occur to some parties, as was remarked in Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275, 279 , .

Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , .

*94 The principal reason assigned by the respondents and by the trial-"1 court for holding the relators not to be parties in substance to the original proceedings is that cases of this kind, and this case, are governed-by the doctrine laid down in Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , , 26 L. R. A. 632, and Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , , and similar cases, and that under that doctrine the relators affirmatively appear to have suffered only damages for which-there could be no legal recov

In Oftelie v. Town of Hammond, 78 Minn. 275 , , attention was called to the fact that the doctrine of reasonableness was adopted in Sheehan v. Flynn, supra; Gilfillan v. Schmidt, 64 Minn. 29 , ; Jungblum v. Minneapolis, N. U. & S. W. Ry.