Hewitt v. Blumenkranz
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the municipal court of Minneapolis.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
Action to recover possession of a pair of diamond ear-rings of the alleged value of $345. The finding of the court is “that the allegations of fact i ¡ the complaint are not proved, and that defendant is entitled to the possession of the property described in the complaint, and that the value thereof is $345.” This is sufficient to sustain the judgment in favor of defendant. If the finding was not sufficiently specific, the trial court should have been moved to make it so, otherwise the objection is waived. Smith v. Pendergast, 26 Minn. 318; Bradford v. Bedbury, 31 Minn. 163; School-district…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- School-District No. 73 v. WrabeckSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Smith v. PendergastSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Bradbury v. BedburySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
3Cited by8 opinions
- Reynolds v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Cummings v. RogersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Dailey v. FosterNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1913
- Brown v. RobertsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Clark v. Thorpe Bros.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.