Bunday v. Dunbar
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RICE COUNTY. ■ Points and Authorities of Appellant. First. — The merits of the case are with Bunday, Defendant in the original action, and Plaintiff in Error here.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RICE COUNTY. ■ Points and Authorities of Appellant. First. — The merits of the case are with Bunday, Defendant in the original action, and Plaintiff in Error here. And this makes it proper to enquire on what grounds was the order made “ that the cause stand dismissed with costs and disburse ■ m&nts to the Defendant in Error ?n No ground is assigned on the record, or in the order ; but the Judge has orally announced “ that the decision was not founded on any motion, or on any objections raised or suggested by counsel, but on the ground that it does not appear,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Cowrt.
FláNdrau, J.
The certiorari was allowed in this case on the 2d day of March, 1860, and not served on the Justice until the 17th day of the same month. ' The Justice made his return to the writ, and among other things certified the time when the writ was served upon him, as required by section 130, chapter 59, Compiled Statutes, on page 516. When the case came on for argument in the District *447Court, the counsel for tbe Defendant in Erroi^ moved to dismiss the writ on several grounds, among which was, that the writ had not been served upon the Justice within ten days after its…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Reynolds v. SmithSupreme Court of Florida · 1905
- Cunningham v. La Crosse & Saint Paul Packet Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1865
- Kelly Dennis v. The Salvation Army and Chesterfield Services, Inc., Relators, and HealthEast Physician Services, HealthEast St. John's Hospital, High Pointe Surgery Center, Minnesota Department of Human Services/BRS, St. Croix Orthopaedics, and Nurse Anesthesia Services, P.A., Intervenors.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016