Merrill, Cowles & Co. v. Shaw & Brother
Supreme Court of Minnesota
And deny that the said note was due, because the Plaintiffs bad, for a valuable consideration, extended the time for the payment thereof, of which extension, the Defendants allege, “ they had the written acknowledgment of said Plaintiffs.” And because the summons in the action could be served upon the Defendants in any County in the Territory. Eighth.
Read the full summary
And deny that the said note was due, because the Plaintiffs bad, for a valuable consideration, extended the time for the payment thereof, of which extension, the Defendants allege, “ they had the written acknowledgment of said Plaintiffs.” And because the summons in the action could be served upon the Defendants in any County in the Territory. Eighth. That non-residence of the Defendants in the County of Ramsey where the action was commenced, did not preclude service of the summons in any other County of tins Territory, nor exclude the jurisdiction of the Court because the Plaintiffs were…
1Opinion of the Court
This canse was commenced in the District Court of Ramsey County, to recover the amount of a promissory note made by the Defendants below, for $1296.60.
The answer of the Defendants set forth that the District Court had no jurisdiction of the persons of the Defendants, because neither the Plaintiffs or Defendants, or either of them, resided in Ramsey County at the time the suit was commenced, and had no property in that County liable to attachment, and that the summons was served upon one of the Defendants in Benton County, where he then resided.
The latter portion of the Answer was, upon…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Taylor v. BenhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1847
- Rightmyer v. RaymondNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Bissell v. Carville & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1844
- Henry A. Hall v. William SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1847