Dunwell v. Warden
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL EROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COÜNTY. Points and Authorities of Appellants. I. — The entry of judgment was wholly unauthorized and Yoid ; because there was no proof filed with the clerk that no answer bad been received within twenty days after tbe service of the summons. Comp. Stat., 555. The affidavit filed purported to lrave been sworn to on tbe same day as the complaint, and before the summons was served.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COÜNTY. Points and Authorities of Appellants. I. — The entry of judgment was wholly unauthorized and Yoid ; because there was no proof filed with the clerk that no answer bad been received within twenty days after tbe service of the summons. Comp. Stat., 555. The affidavit filed purported to lrave been sworn to on tbe same day as the complaint, and before the summons was served. II. — The Court has no authority to order its clerk to make erasures or interlineations in such official statements of independent -officers as may be on its files. III. — No…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court —
Atwatee, J.
— The Plaintiffs took judgment by default against the Defendants November 5th, 1858. The summons and complaint were dated, (as appears from the paper book,) October 4th, and the complaint sworn to on the 5th of the same month. It further appears that the summons was served upon tlie Defendants upon the 8th and 15th of October, 1858.
On the 25th of April, 1861, an order was obtained on behalf of the Defendants, that the Plaintiffs show cause before the Hon. E. 0. Palmer on the 27th of the same month, why the judgment and all subsequent proceedings . should not be set…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mathison v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- State ex rel. Childs v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Barker v. KeithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1865