Hurley Bros. v. Haluptzok
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $161.46 for goods sold and delivered. Judgment was entered by default for want of an answer. Defendant procured an order to show cause why his motion should not be granted to vacate the judgment and to have the answer served on plaintiff’s attorney by mail stand for the answer of defendant. The motion was denied, Kelly, J. From the order denying the motion, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.
Plaintiff commenced this action by service of summons on May 4, 1918. On May 25, 1918, no answer having been received, judgment was taken against defendant as by default. Defendant asked to have the judgment vacated. He did not ask to be relieved of default. If default was made there was no attempt to excuse it. Defendant’s contention was that an answer was served in time and that there was no default. This is the sole question in the ease. Defendant’s attorneys reside at Big Falls, Minnesota. Plaintiff’s attorney resides in St. Paul, Minnesota. Between the two points there is regular…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kay v. ElsholtzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
3Cited by6 opinions
- Copren v. State Bar of NevadaNevada Supreme Court · 1947
- MacLean v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Wagshal v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1981
- In Re Powell's EstateNevada Supreme Court · 1945
- Copren v. MontroseNevada Supreme Court · 1945
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.