Barker v. Keith
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Judgment by default in this action was entered up in favor of tbe plaintiff, March 9, 1865, in tbe Eamsey County District Court.
Read the full summary
Judgment by default in this action was entered up in favor of tbe plaintiff, March 9, 1865, in tbe Eamsey County District Court. Before tbe time for answering bad expired, tbe defendant appeared in the action, by attorney, and a stipulation and agreement was entered into by the parties by their attorneys, February 10th, 1865, as follows : “ That said defendant have until the 6th day of March, 1865, to answer herein, and no longer; and that in consideration of such extension of the time to answer herein, the plaintiff shall have judgment in this cause for the amount claimed in the complaint…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Cowrt
McMillan, J.
Where a judgment is set aside on the ground of irregularity in the entry of judgment, the order is appealable. Dunnell et al. v. Warden et al., 6 Minn. 287. But when it is set aside in order to grant relief to the defendant under Sec. 94, Ch. 60 of the Comp. Stat., it is within the discretion of the court, and will only be reviewed in ease of abuse of discretion. Jorgenson v. Boehmer et al., 9 Minn. 181, and authorities cited. This case we think comes within the latter class of cases. It is true the affidavit upon which the motion is based, states facts which show an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jorgensen v. BoehmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864
- Dunwell v. WardenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
3Cited by11 opinions
- State ex rel. Birdzell v. JorgensonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Spencer v. HaugSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Knox v. RandallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
- Leuthold v. YoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Evans v. Fall River CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.