Swift v. Fletcher
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE NICOLLET COUNTY. Points and Authorities for Appellant. I. — The District Court erred in refusing to set aside the judgment entered on pretence of failure to answer, because the Defendant’s answer was lawfully served in time.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE NICOLLET COUNTY. Points and Authorities for Appellant. I. — The District Court erred in refusing to set aside the judgment entered on pretence of failure to answer, because the Defendant’s answer was lawfully served in time. Eacts : Summons served Octobor 4, 1860 ; notice of retainer served by mail, October 8, 1860 ; copy of complaint served personally on Defendant’s attorneys, October 15, 1860 ; copy of answer served by mail, October 29, 1860 ; judgment on failure to answer, November 5, 1S60, without notice. Authorities: Qom.jp. Stat., 537, oh. 60, see. (51)…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Oourt —
Flandrau, J.
— Under section 51, page 537, of the Compiled Statutes, a Defendant has the same time to answer a complaint after it is served upon him, that he had of unexpired time, when he served notice of appearance. In this case the summons was served on the 4th of October. The Defendant had until the 24th of October inclusive, in which to answer. Tie appeared in the action October 8th, by mail. The Plaintiff had until the 14th to serve his complaint. He served it on the 15th, and no objection was made. The Defendant at the time he appeared, had sixteen days left to answer in;…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Guilford v. Minneapolis, S. Ste. M. & A. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Moore v. LetchfordTexas Supreme Court · 1872
- State Ex Rel. Rankin v. Yellowstone Bank & Trust Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1925
- Linn v. RuggSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
- Merrill v. National Bank of JacksonvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.