Cited by

(concluding that a statute directing a county board of commissioners to appoint viewers within a specified time “must be deemed directory,” and the failure to strictly comply with the statute did not invalidate the proceedings involving the establishment of a drainage ditch).

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 16 , 100 N.W.

93 Minn. 16 , , wherein an appeal had been taken from an order of the county board refusing to establish a county ditch, it is said: “No provision having been made by law for further action by the board of county commissioners, we are also of the opinion that the *15 legislature must have intended to confer upon the

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 16 , ; State v. George, 123 Minn. 59 , ; 9 R. C. L. 642.

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 16 , .

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 17 , ), and we deem it applicable to the provision stating when the call for bids should be published.

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 16 , ; State v. Johnson, 111 Minn. 255 , ; Madsen v. Larson, 117 Minn. 369 , .

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 16 , ), were concededly regular, and there was full and complete jurisdiction.

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 16 , , did not involve this question, and is not in point.

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 16 , , where section 25, c. 258, p. 427, Laws 1901, was construed and upheld, though the precise point does not seem to have been raised.

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 16 , , is not in point.

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 16 , .

of Freeborn County, 93 Minn. 16, 23 , , Douglas, J., said: “No provision having been made by law for further action by the board of county commissioners [after an appeal taken], we are also of the opinion that the legislature must have intended to confer upon the court jurisdiction to try and determine all the issues of fact and l