instalments, he, with full knowledge of plaintiff's remarriage and
her claim to continued alimony, having refrained from seeking a
revision of the decree.
-Hartigan v. Hartigan, 274.
Limited Divorce-Separate Maintenance. See Husband and Wife, 4.
In Public Drainage Proceedings County Officers are Agents of the Law.
See County and County Officer, 1.
County Ditch-Judicial Ditch.
1. Under the law of 1905 (p. 303, c. 230) if the proposed ditch was
wholly within a single county, jurisdiction of the proceedings was
vested in the board of county commissioners of that county and
the ditch was termed a county ditch; if the proposed ditch extend-
ed into or affected lands within more than one county, jurisdiction
of the proceedings was vested in the district court and the ditch
was termed a judicial ditch. The only territorial requirements or
restrictions stated in this act were that ditches established by the
county commissioners should affect only their own county, and
that ditches established by the district court should affect more
than one county. This latter requirement was eliminated by chap
ter 469, p. 565, Laws of 1909, which authorized the district court
to establish ditches wholly within one county.
-In re Judicial Ditch No. 81 of Martin County, 165.
Ditch Statute Operative within Municipal Limits.
2. The general drainage law authorizes the construction of ditches and
drains whenever the prescribed conditions are found to exist, wheth-
er the lands to be drained lie within or without the corporate limits
of a city or village.
In re Judicial Ditch No. 81 of Martin County, 164, 167.
Failure to Give Notice of Final Hearing.
3. Final order establishing a drainage project which embraced two pre-
viously established drainage systems was annulled, because notice
of the final hearing upon the viewers' and engineer's reports was
not given as required by statute.
-State ex rel. v. Nelson, 494.
Drainage of Meandered Lake.
4. Meandered lakes belong to the state in its sovereign capacity, in
trust for the public. The right of the public to their enjoyment may
not be destroyed, if they are of substantial public use, under the
guise of protecting the public health, promoting public welfare or
reclaiming waste lands through drainage proceedings.
-Erickschen v. County of Sibley, 38.
5. The state has an interest in, and as the representative of the public
is affected by, the drainage of a meandered lake, and it is the duty
of county boards and courts to guard the interests of the state in
proceedings brought to drain such a lake.
-Erickschen v. County of Sibley, 38.
6. Washington lake, with an area of about 600 acres, and having well
defined shores and a muddy bottom, has been dry two or three
times in the last 50 years, but at times has had a depth of 6 to 10
feet, and at the time of trial, August, 1917, its depth varied from
2.7 feet to 3.5 feet, which was its maximum depth at that time. At
least one-third of the lake is overgrown with vegetation. Some
coarse fish is taken. The lake is frequented by wild ducks in the
fall of the year. Evidence indicated that the carrying out of the
drainage project would reduce the area and depth of the lake, de
stroy the hunting and fishing and aggravate the obnoxious condi
tions said to be caused by decayed vegetation along its margin.
Held: The lake is not such a body of water as is subject to drain-
age within the meaning of chapter 300, p. 425, Laws 1915.
-Erickschen v. County of Sibley, 38, 42, 43, 44.
Same-Jurisdiction of County Board.
7. The petition provided for by G. S. 1913, § 5525, is sufficient to confer
jurisdiction upon a county board to act in a drainage proceeding
which will result in the drainage of a meandered lake.
-Erickschen v. County of Sibley, 37.
8. Such a petition of necessity discloses that the drainage ditch to be
dug passes through such lake, when the course of the ditch is de-
scribed as prescribed by the statute and the lake is made a con-
necting link in the ditch.
-Erickschen v. County of Sibley, 37.
Trial on Appeal from Board.
9. On appeal to the district court, under G. S. 1913, § 5589, from an or-
der of a county board granting a drainage petition affecting a mean-
dered lake, there is a trial de novo, the sole question being whether
the lake is properly subject to drainage under chapter 300, Laws
1915. Mundwiler v. Bentson, 128 Minn. 69, 150 N. W. 209, followed.
-Erickschen v. County of Sibley, 37.
10. The findings of the trial court on such appeal are entitled to the
same weight as in ordinary cases tried by the court without a jury.
-Erickschen v. County of Sibley, 37.
Partition of Bed of Meandered Lake.
11. In a judicial ditch proceeding in which a meandered lake is drained
an apportionment and partition of the lake bed among the riparian
owners may be made at the final hearing without the petition and
notice provided by G. S. 1913, § 5531.
Private Drain of Owners of Adjacent Lands. See Water and Water-
course, 3, 4.
Construction of Bridge-Assessment of Damages.
12. It is the duty of an engineer in a drainage proceeding to prepare
and file plans and specifications for all bridges to be constructed, to-
gether with a statement of the estimated cost thereof, as a basis
for the assessment of damages and benefits therein.
-Town of Lisbon v. Counties of Yellow Medicine et al. 299.
13. The report of the engineer as to the size and character of bridges
in a drainage proceeding, when affirmed by the order establishing
the ditch, is conclusive, and should be the foundation of the assess-
ment of damages to the town required to construct the same.
-Town of Lisbon v. Counties of Yellow Medicine et al. 299.
14. In a trial, upon a demand for a jury to assess damages in such pro-
ceeding, it is error to admit testimony as to what kind of bridges
should be constructed, the same having been provided for in the
plans and specifications of the official engineer.
-Town of Lisbon v. Counties of Yellow Medicine et al. 299.
15. The damages to which a town is entitled on account of bridges pro-
vided for in public drainage proceedings is the cost of the construc-
tion and maintenance of the same, less the value of the wreckage
from bridges to be replaced.
-Town of Lisbon v. Counties of Yellow Medicine et al. 299.
16. The rule requiring a railroad company to construct and maintain
bridges across the channel of a public ditch has no application to a
municipality having the care and maintenance of public highways.
-Town of Lisbon v. Counties of Yellow Medince et al. 300
17. When in a drainage proceeding a demand is made for a jury trial
to determine damages the burden is upon demandant to overcome
the assessments fixed in the viewers' report.
-Town of Lisbon v. Counties of Yellow Medicine et al. 304.
18. In assessing benefits upon a town charged with the maintenance of
a public highway, the viewers may consider and determine, not only
the benefits derived from the drainage of the highway, but as well
from the improvement of the same by the construction of the
bridges provided in the engineer's plans and specifications.
-Town of Lisbon v. Counties of Yellow Medicine et al. 304.
Judicial Ditch-Assessment of Benefits.
19. An order amending the viewers' report after a public drainage sys-
tem is established does not change the rule of evidence upon a trial
before a jury to assess benefits.
In re Judicial Ditch No. 7, Blue Earth County, 178.
20. An order establishing a public drainage system and confirming the
report of the viewers in no way changes the rule of evidence bear-
ing upon the issue raised by a demand for a jury to assess benefits.
--In re Judicial Ditch No. 7, Blue Earth County, 178.
21. A demand for a jury to assess benefits in a public drainage proceed-
ing is a demand for a review by a jury of the decision of the court,
and entitles the landowner to a trial de novo upon that question.
In re Judicial Ditch No. 7, Blue Earth County, 178.
22. Upon a trial before a jury to assess benefits in a public drainage
proceeding, the landowner may show, not only the lay of his land,
its condition, and present means of outlet, but as well the cost of
draining his farm without the aid of the proposed system.
-In re Judicial Ditch No. 7, Blue Earth County, 178.
23. In a jury trial on the question of assessment of benefits in a public
drainage system, where the offer of the landowner who was assessed
$3,600 to prove that his land couuld be drained through a natural ra-
vine for some $926 was rejected, a new trial was granted because
of that error.
-In re Judicial Ditch No. 7, Blue Earth County, 181.
Action against Engineer and His Surety.
24. Action by landowner against the duly appointed and qualified engi-
neer of an open ditch and his surety for damages because of his
misstatements to plaintiff, the viewers and county board, in respect
to the depth of the ditch and the necessity of a bridge across it on
plaintiff's premises. The reports of the engineer and viewers and
final order establishing the ditch were duly filed as required by law,
but plaintiff did not appeal from the order. At the trial defendants'
objection to the reception of any testimony on the ground that the
complaint did not state a cause of action was sustained. Plaintiff
appealed from an order denying a new trial. Held: The plaintiff
had full opportunity to examine the reports and final order and in-
form himself as to the exact provisions of the same. The statutes
35 Vol. 142 M.
impose no duty on the engineer to advise the parties interested in
the ditch proceeding and plaintiff had no right to rely upon state-
ments made by the engineer. The complaint failed to state a cause
of action.
-Goetze v. Van Krevelen, 500.
In Street. For Public Travel. See Municipal Corporation, 9.
Grant of Right of Way.
1. An ambiguity in a description of a grant of a right of way may be
solved by considering the circumstances attending the grant and
the practical construction the parties themselves gave the descrip-
tion by the location and maintenance of the way for many years in
a certain definite place.
2. An easement of right of way may be appurtenant to a tract of land
even though not touched by the way granted, when it clearly ap-
pears that such was the intention. Proof of intention is aided by
the rule that an easement in gross will never be presumed when, in
the light of all the circumstances under which it was granted, it can
be fairly construed appurtenant.
3. In order to make out a cause of action against the owner of an ease-
ment of right of way for grading and improving the roadway, the
onus is upon the owner of the servient estate to show that the
work was improperly done, or unnecessarily injured the latter's use
of the land. The finding that there was no injury to plaintiff's
rights from defendant's work upon the right of way is sustained.
-Bruns v. Willems, 473.
Violation of Corrupt Practices Act.
Undisputed evidence that during the campaign contestee's brother or-
ganized a voluntary committee which raised money and assisted
the candidacy of contestee. The personnel of the committee was
entirely unknown to contestee and he had no knowledge of the work
or money which it expended in his behalf or the sources from which
it came. At the close of the testimony offered by contestant, the
court made findings and ordered judgment of dismissal on the
ground that contestant had failed to prove the allegations of the
petition that contestee had violated the Corrupt Practices Act. Evi-
dence held to justify the findings and order of the court.
|