Case ID: sd_43/html/0455-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "POLLEY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LARSON et al, Respondents, v. TOWNSHIP OF EDISON et al, Appellants.
    (180 N. W. 64)
    (File No. 4710.
    Opinion filed December 1, 1920.
    Rebearing denied January 7, 1921.1
    Boundaries — “Lost” Corner' — Defendants’ Unwarranted Appropriation Be Plaintiffs’ Land — Conflicting Evidence on Second Trial, Sufficiency Of.
    Upon appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs, upon a second trial, evidence tbougb conflicting held sufficient to warrant trial court’s finding that plaintiffs’ contention as to location of S. B. corner of their land is right, and that defendants township supervisors were attempting to appropriate a portion of plaintiffs’ land for highway purposes without compensation.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County. Hon. John T. Medin, Judge.
    Action by Anna Larson and others, against the Township of Edison, in Minnehaha County, S. D., and Iver Henjum and others as supervisors of said township, and another, to enjoin defendants from entering upon plaintiff’s land and taking same for road purposes. A¡fter a former judgment in favor of defendants, was reversed 'by Supreme Court, a second trial was had, resulting in a judgment for plaintiffs; from which judgment and from an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Eor former opinion see 41 S'. D. 168, 169, N. W. 523.
    
      Parliman & Parliman, for Appellants.
    
      Krause & Krause, for Respondents.
   POLLEY, J.

This case was here on a former appeal, and will be found reported in 41 S. D. at page 168, 169 N. W. 523, where a sufficient statement of the facts will be found.

On a second trial the circuit court found as a fact that plaintiffs are right in their contention as to the location of the southeast corner of their land, and that defendants Munson, Hermanson and 'Shjegstad, as supervisors of 'Edison township, were attempting to appropriate a portion of plaintiffs’ land for highway purposes without compensation. ■

A considerable amount of testimany was taken on behalf of the defendants in addition to ¡what was taken on the first trial, but in our view the facts . are not materially different from the facts contained in the opinion of the court on the former appeal and no useful purpose would be served by a restatement of the facts here. The evidence was conflicting, and the trial court was warranted in making the findings it did, and such findings and evidence fully support the judgment.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.