
    C. A. SANDS AND ANOTHER v. O. J. DYSTHE AND OTHERS.
    
    October 20, 1916.
    Nos. 19,774—(29).
    Drain —■ demand for jury trial.
    A demand- for a jury trial in a judicial ditcb proceeding, though it did not describe the land assessed for benefits, the description appearing in the proceeding in which the appeal was taken, held sufficient, following Asquith v. Engstrom, 133 Minn. 113, 157 N. W. 1004.
    C. A. Sands and Joseph Cowan appealed to the district court for Murray county from the order of Nelson, J., confirming the reports of the engineers and viewers in the matter of Judicial Ditch Proceeding No. 7 in that county, on the ground that the amount of benefits assessed to appellants was in excess of the actual benefit to their land, and demanded a jury trial to determine their benefits. From the order granting respondents’ motion to dismiss the apipeal, O. A. Sands and Joseph Cowan appealed.
    Reversed.
    
      J. A. Cashel, for appellants.
    
      Ole Swan-jord, for respondents.
    
      
       Reported in 159 N. W. 629.
    
   Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order in judicial ditch proceeding dismissing appellant’s demand for a jury trial.

The demand is substantially in the form of that of the appellant in Asquith v. Engstrom, 133 Minn. 113, 157 N. W. 1004, decided since' this appeal was taken. The demand does not describe the land but the description is ascertainable by referring to the assessment which is a part of the record. Following the case cited we hold the demand sufficient. No statutory costs will be allowed.

Order reversed.  