Stevens v. Currey
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This cause was at issue, and noticed for trial by the plaintifF’s attorneys, and placed on the calendar for the term of the District Court in Olmstead county, in October, 1862. At said term, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend his complaint, which was allowed, and the complaint was amended. There was also an amended answer and reply in said cause. No notice of trial, other than the one for said October term, was ever served.
Read the full summary
This cause was at issue, and noticed for trial by the plaintifF’s attorneys, and placed on the calendar for the term of the District Court in Olmstead county, in October, 1862. At said term, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend his complaint, which was allowed, and the complaint was amended. There was also an amended answer and reply in said cause. No notice of trial, other than the one for said October term, was ever served. The cause was on the calendar of said court for the May term, 1863, and the defendants moved the court to strike the same from the calendar, as improperly placed…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court —
McMillan, J.
— The only question to be determined in this case is whether after a cause is regularly noticed for trial and placed upon the calendar, an amendment of the pleadings requires a new notice of trial before the case can be disposed of if either party objects.
It is expressly provided by statute when the proper notice of trial and note^ of issue are given, that the clerk shall enter the cause upon the calendar according to the date of the issue, and “The issues once placed upon the calendar of a term if not tried at the term for which the notice was given, need not be…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Knight v. ValentineSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886