DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

70 citing documents.

  • Roy v. Dannehr 144 N.W. 758 Minn. 1914
  • Roy v. Dannehr 144 N.W. 758 Minn. 1914
    Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; Benz v. City of St.
  • Marek v. Jelinek 141 N.W. 788 Minn. 1913
  • Marek v. Jelinek 141 N.W. 788 Minn. 1913
    ve silently looked on while the other party encroached upon it, and subjected himself to expense in regard to the land, which he would not have done had the line been in dispute.” The effect of a practical location of a boundary line is to divest one proprietor of a conceded title by deed, and “the evidence establishing such location should be clear, positive and unequivocal.” Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , .
  • Goroski v. Tawney 141 N.W. 102 Minn. 1913
  • Goroski v. Tawney 141 N.W. 102 Minn. 1913
    Chan v. Brandt, 45 Minn. 93 , ; Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; Beltz v. Mathiowitz, 72 Minn. 443 , .
  • Moser v. Doffner 125 N.W. 275 Minn. 1910
  • Moser v. Doffner 125 N.W. 275 Minn. 1910
    Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; Benz v. City of St.
  • Markusen v. Mortensen 116 N.W. 1021 Minn. 1908
  • Markusen v. Mortensen 116 N.W. 1021 Minn. 1908
    Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; Benz v. City of St.
  • Kleven v. Gunderson 104 N.W. 4 Minn. 1905
  • Kleven v. Gunderson 104 N.W. 4 Minn. 1905
    Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 544 , ; Hrouska v. Janke, 66 Wis.
  • Benz v. City of St. Paul 93 N.W. 1038 Minn. 1903
  • Benz v. City of St. Paul 93 N.W. 1038 Minn. 1903
    *37 The rule governing the “practical location” of a boundary line was very clearly stated by Justice COLLINS in the case of Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537, 545 , .
  • Winger v. Vaae 84 N.W. 659 Minn. 1901
  • Winger v. Vaae 84 N.W. 659 Minn. 1901
    Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ; Beltz v. Mathiowitz, 72 Minn. 443 , .
  • Beltz v. Mathiowitz 75 N.W. 699 Minn. 1898
  • Beltz v. Mathiowitz 75 N.W. 699 Minn. 1898
    Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , .
  • Thoen v. Roche 58 N.W. 686 Minn. 1894
  • Thoen v. Roche 58 N.W. 686 Minn. 1894
    The evidence as to an agreement between the plaintiff’s predecessor in title and the defendant locating the line between them, and of acquiescence in, and building fences with reference to, the line so located, was not very full, but there was enough to authorize the jury in finding an agreement that would be binding within *140 the rule, as stated in Beardsley v. Crane, 52 Minn. 537 , ( .)