Mitchell v. Miller
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Clay-county, Baxter, J., denying a motion to vacate and set aside garnishment proceedings instituted .by plaintiff against the city of Moor-head, a municipal corporation.
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, J.
Plaintiff, having commenced an action against defendant to recover the value of certain services performed, garnished the city of Moor-head, and defendant appeals from an order of the trial court denying his motion to vacate and set aside the garnishee proceedings.
Having come to the conclusion upon the merits that the municipality is subject to garnishment, we have assumed jurisdiction, without deciding whether the order vacating and setting aside the garnishment is appealable. The assertion by defendant that the trial court acquired no jurisdiction, for the reason that the parties were…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pendleton v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Portsmouth Gas Co. v. SanfordSupreme Court of Virginia · 1899
- Waterbury v. Board of CommissionersMontana Supreme Court · 1891
- City of Laredo v. NalleTexas Supreme Court · 1886
- Roeller v. AmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- First Nat. Bank of Temple v. Achenbach, Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
- Wheeler v. Walter J. Bryson Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1931
- State v. Surety Finance Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1933
- Curtis v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Teves v. ReadeHawaii Supreme Court · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.