Baberick v. Magner
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF 2ÍTCOLLET COBHTY. Points and authorities for Appellant. I. The Respondent does not complain nor allege that a notice of appeal was not served both upon Ms attorneys, and upon the clerk of the district court within the proper time, (for such was the fact). II.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF 2ÍTCOLLET COBHTY. Points and authorities for Appellant. I. The Respondent does not complain nor allege that a notice of appeal was not served both upon Ms attorneys, and upon the clerk of the district court within the proper time, (for such was the fact). II. The Respondent does not deny that the notice was entitled in the proper court, and was descriptive of the order or decision appealed from, nor that the appeal was taken in good faith, and with the intention that it should be heard and determined by this court on its merits without delay. III. The only…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
Emmett, C. J.
This was originally a proceeding on the part of Baberick to contest the validity of Magner’s election to the office of treasurer of the county of Nicollet, to which the latter was declared to have been elected by the board of county canvassers at the general election held in 1863. The district court where the proceedings referred to were had, reversed in effect the decision of the canvassers, or decided that Baberick, and not Magner, was duly elected to said office at said election; and thereupon the latter appealed to this court. Each party here objects to the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Mellison v. AllenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- Clemmons v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1911
- Bloom v. Sioux City Traction Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Borer v. KolarsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Seeley v. KilloranSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.