Sig Ellingson & Co. v. Polk County State Bank
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Concurrence
All agree that the orders under review should be affirmed upon an equal division of opinion and that no precedent is made. The cases cited in the per curiam so hold. It was the rule at common law. It is everywhere held. Dec. Dig. Appeal and Error, § 1123. Nothing we say further is of judicial consequence.
There can be no dissent by a majority. There can be no dissent when there is an equal division. There can be a dissent only by a minority. The practice is to state the result and refrain from commenting upon the merits of opposing claims. Thus in the first case cited, Wilson v. Jamison, 36…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Agard v. Peoples National Bank of ShakopeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- State v. CorrivauSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Gran v. SpangenbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Nelson v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Polin v. St. Paul Union Depot Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.