Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Beardsley v. Crane, 54 N.W. 740.

70 citing documents.

Lyle Batton, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In the Matter of the Petition of Melvin J. Cummins for an Order Determining Boundary Lines Minn. Ct. App. 2018
52 Minn. 537, 542, 544 –45, 54 N.W.
In the Matter of the Application of Fischer Sand and Aggregate, LLP. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Application of Fischer Sand and Aggregate, LLP. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 546, 54 N.W.
In the Matter of the Petition of Melvin J. Cummins for an Order Determining Boundary Lines. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Petition of Melvin J. Cummins for an Order Determining Boundary Lines. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(quoting Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 546, 54 N.W.
Ruikkie v. Nall 798 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ruikkie v. Nall 798 N.W.2d 806 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Slindee, d at 907 (quoting Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 546 , 54 N.W.
Slindee v. Fritch Investments, LLC 760 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Slindee v. Fritch Investments, LLC 760 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
To establish a boundary by practical location through express agreement, Fritch had the burden to prove that an express agreement between the landowners set an “exact, precise line” between his parcel and the Slindees’ parcel and that the agreement had been acquiesced to “for a considerable time.” Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 546 , 54 N.W.
Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Gabler v. Fedoruk 756 N.W.2d 725 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
a title by deed.” (citing Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 546 , 54 N.W.
Matter of Zahradka 472 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Matter of Zahradka 472 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
See Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , 54 N.W.
Kiess v. Hamann 369 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Kiess v. Hamann 369 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
DECISION Appellants claim the trial court established their driveway as the practical boundary of the parties’ property citing Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , 54 N.W.
Theros v. Phillips 256 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1977
Theros v. Phillips 256 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 1977
Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , 54 *859 N.W.
Magnuson v. City of White Bear Lake 203 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1973
Magnuson v. City of White Bear Lake 203 N.W.2d 848 Minn. 1973
The doctrine of practical location was first enunciated in Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , and was described in Benz v. City of St.
Phillips v. Blowers 161 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 1968
Phillips v. Blowers 161 N.W.2d 524 Minn. 1968
Because the crux of the case is defendant’s claim that the common boundary was established by practical location and user, we preface the discussion by recalling, as first stated in Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 545 , , and more recently reiterated in Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 506 , 68 N. W. (2d) 412, 416 , that the practical location of a boundary line can be established in only three ways: (1) Acquiescence or adverse possession.
Amato v. Haraden 159 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1968
Amato v. Haraden 159 N.W.2d 907 Minn. 1968
The authorities upon which plaintiff relies are a long line of cases beginning with Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , , and continuing down to the more recent cases of Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1 , 53 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson, 232 Minn. 152 , 44 N. W. (2d) 775 ; and Aldrich v. Wilson, 265 Minn. 150 , 120 N. W. (2d) 849 .
Aldrich v. Wilson 120 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1963
Aldrich v. Wilson 120 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1963
Gifford v. Vore, 245 Minn. 432 , 72 N. W. (2d) 625 ; Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1 , 53 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Selnes, 223 Minn. 518 , 27 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Dittrich v. Ubl, 216 Minn. 396 , 13 N. W. *161 (2d) 384; Dunkel v. Roth, 211 Minn. 194 , ; Liederbach v. Pickett, 199 Minn. 554 , ; Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; M. S. A. 559.23.” See, also, 37 Minn. L. Rev. 382 ; Engquist v. Wirtjes, 243 Minn. 502, 506 , 68 N. W. (2d) 412, 416 ; Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson, supra.
Neill v. Hake 93 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1958
Neill v. Hake 93 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1958
Gifford v. Vore, 245 Minn. 432 , 72 N. W. (2d) 625 ; Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1 , 53 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Selnes, 223 Minn. 518 , 27 N. W. (2d) 553 ; Dittrich v. Ubl, 216 Minn. 396 , 13 N. W. (2d) 384 ; Dunkel v. Roth, 211 Minn. 194 , ; Liederbach v. Pickett, 199 Minn. 554 , ; Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; M. S. A. 559.23.
Engquist v. Wirtjes 68 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1955
Engquist v. Wirtjes 68 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1955
9 These three methods were originally determined in Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , .
Fishman v. Nielsen 53 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1952
Fishman v. Nielsen 53 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1952
Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 587 , ; Benz v. City of St.
Simms v. Fagan 12 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1943
Simms v. Fagan 12 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1943
& Supp. § 1083; Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; Benz v. City of St.
Romanchuk v. Plotkin 9 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1943
Romanchuk v. Plotkin 9 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1943
Marek v. Jelinek, 121 Minn. 468 , ; Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , .
Lenzmeier v. Ess 270 N.W. 677 Minn. 1937
Lenzmeier v. Ess 270 N.W. 677 Minn. 1937
So a practical location was not proved within the rules stated in Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; Benz v. City of St.
First National Bank v. Northwestern Trust Co. 231 N.W. 790 Minn. 1930
First National Bank v. Northwestern Trust Co. 231 N.W. 790 Minn. 1930
Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; and Haycock v. Johnston, 81 Minn. 49 , *123 , are cited, together with like decisions from other jurisdictions.
Lunz v. Estate of Mary Sandmeier 215 N.W. 426 Minn. 1927
Lunz v. Estate of Mary Sandmeier 215 N.W. 426 Minn. 1927
B. S. §§ 2396, 2397; Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; Clark, Surv.
Lawler v. Counties of Rice 178 N.W. 317 Minn. 1920
Lawler v. Counties of Rice 178 N.W. 317 Minn. 1920
Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , .
Einung v. Schlopkohl 151 N.W. 273 Minn. 1915
Einung v. Schlopkohl 151 N.W. 273 Minn. 1915
Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 546 , ; Benz v. City of St.
County of Houston v. Burns 148 N.W. 115 Minn. 1914
County of Houston v. Burns 148 N.W. 115 Minn. 1914
Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; Benz v. City of St.
Nadeau v. Johnson 147 N.W. 241 Minn. 1914
Nadeau v. Johnson 147 N.W. 241 Minn. 1914
The rules controlling the practical location of a boundary line were fully stated in Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , , and in Benz v. City of St.