DocketNumber: Nos. 17,865—(12)
Citation Numbers: 119 Minn. 541
Judges: Ctjbiam
Filed Date: 11/22/1912
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
This cause was before us on a former appeal (114 Minn. 293, 131 N. W. 330), where we held that the evidence then before the court was insufficient to justify a finding that the street in question became established as a public highway •over and across defendant’s right of way by dedication or user, and for certain errors appearing from the record the cause was remanded for a new trial. The •question of dedication appears to have been the sole issue on the second trial. The trial court found the question in relator’s favor, and ordered judgment for the relief demanded in the complaint. Judgment was entered accordingly and defendant appealed.
A careful examination of the evidence presented on this appeal, discloses no difference in point of substance from that presented on the former trial, and we sustain the contention of appellant that the former decision becomes the law
If there be any urgent necessity for a crossing at this point, proceedings to extend the street would seem the most appropriate remedy. State v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. 98 Minn. 380, 108 N. W. 261.
Judgment reversed.