Young v. Young
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This is an action for divorce, brought in the district court for St. Louis county. The defendant did not appear in the action, and a judgment for divorce was rendered. She after-wards applied to the court to have the judgment vacated, and that she be permitted to answer, and the case stand for trial as if no judgment had been entered. This application was denied, and from the order denying the same, the defendant appeals to this court.
Read the full summary
This is an action for divorce, brought in the district court for St. Louis county. The defendant did not appear in the action, and a judgment for divorce was rendered. She after-wards applied to the court to have the judgment vacated, and that she be permitted to answer, and the case stand for trial as if no judgment had been entered. This application was denied, and from the order denying the same, the defendant appeals to this court. A .full statement of the case appears in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Berry, J.
Judgment having been rendered dissolving the marriage contract existing between the above *182named parties, the defendant, Mary E. Young, who did not appear in the action, Lub was defaulted, made application (January 5th, 1871,) to the court in which the judgment was rendered, to have said judgment vacated, and that she be permitted to answer, and the case stand for trial as if no judgment had been entered therein. From the order denying her application, defendant appeals to this court, as she is authorized to do by subdiv. 6, sec. 8, ch, 86, Gen Stat., which permits an…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Board of County Commissioners v. GraySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Farwell v. St. Paul Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Boehne v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- Wisdom v. WisdomNebraska Supreme Court · 1888
- Wooden v. WoodenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.