Potter v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Aitkin county, Holland, J., overruling a demurrer to the amended complaint.
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
This action was commenced in September, 1894, in Aitkin county. Before the time to answer expired, defendants served on plaintiffs a demand for a change of the place of trial to Becker county, and moved for such change on the affidavit of defendant Holmes, that he then, and for more than a year prior thereto, resided in that county, and that neither defendant ever resided in Aitkin county. Plaintiffs then made a counter motion that the place of trial be retained in Aitkin county, on the ground of the convenience of witnesses. See Jones v. Swank, 54 Minn. 259, 55 N. W. 1126. Thereupon both…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Veeder v. . BakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Penniman v. Fuller & Warren Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Furnell v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1873
- Flowers v. BartlettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. BradburySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Frankfort Distilleries, Inc. v. Burns Bottling MacHine Works, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1938
- McSherry v. the Market CorporationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Peterson v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- King v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
- Potter v. HolmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.