Cited by

Anderson v. District Court, 119 Minn. 132 , ; In re Minnetonka Lake Improvement, 56 Minn. 513 , .

56 Minn. 513 , , 45 A. S. R. 494, a dam on Minnehaha Creek, the outlet of Lake Minnetonka, was involved.

Interesting and instructive too, and of controlling importance here, is In re Minnetonka Lake Improvement, 56 Minn. 513 , 58 N.W.

* * * The law justified the maintenance of the lake at its natural and usual height and level.” Interesting and instructive too, and of controlling importance here, is In re Minnetonka Lake Improvement, 56 Minn. 513 , , 45 A. S. R. 494, where Mr. Justice Mitchell with characteristic clarity defined high-water mark, the rights of the riparian owner to the use of his property to that point even if his land is subject to frequent overflow, and the necessity of compensating him if the.

It is interesting to read what was said by this court in the case of In re Minnetonka Lake Improvement, 56 Minn. 513 , , 45 A. S. R. 494, as to description of the lake and surroundings in 1894, and the difference between extreme high-water and extreme low-water levels prior to that time, and as to the changes in water level being irregular, except that they occur periodically according as the years or seasons are wet or

An assessment cannot be levied for benefits not secured, In re Minne- *43 tonka, 56 Minn. 513, 519 , , 45 Am.

Co. 50 Minn. 438 , ; In re Minnetonka Lake Improvement, 56 Minn. 513 , , 45 Am.

of Hennepin County, 56 Minn. 513 , , where it was held that riparian rights below the ordinary mark of high water were subject to the superior right of the public, and that a taking thereof by the authorities for a public use, as by raising the waters of a lake for purposes of navigation or the public health, was a damage for which no re

Mitchell, J., in Re Lake Minnetonka Improvement, 56 Minn. 513 , , 45 Am.

LOVELY, J. Appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer questioning the sufficiency of the complaint, which, in apt and appropriate terms, alleges a local assessment upon shore lots of Lake Minnetonka to pay their proportionate share for the improvement made under Laws 1897, e. 88, considered on other grounds by this court in Carpenter v. Board of Co. Commrs., 56 Minn. 513 , , and State v. District Court, 83 Minn. 464 , .

Carpenter v. Board of Co. Commrs., 56 Minn. 513 , .

Weaver v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 28 Minn. 534 , ; In re Minnetonka Lake Improvement, 56 Minn. 513 , ; Carlson v. St.

McKenzie v. Mississippi & R. R. Boom Co., 29 Minn. 288 , ; In re Minnetonka Lake Imp., 56 Minn. 513 , .

In re Minnetonka Lake Improvement, 56 Minn. 513 , .