Irvine v. Lawrence Meyers & Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. Plaintiffs sued Defendant and others in the Second District Court for goods sold. The Defendant alone answered. The case was referred to a referee, who reported tor the Plaintiffs, and judgment was entered on the report. Sometime after judgment was entered, Defendant moved for leave to make a case, which motion was denied, Defendant having omitted to serve part of his moving papers.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. Plaintiffs sued Defendant and others in the Second District Court for goods sold. The Defendant alone answered. The case was referred to a referee, who reported tor the Plaintiffs, and judgment was entered on the report. Sometime after judgment was entered, Defendant moved for leave to make a case, which motion was denied, Defendant having omitted to serve part of his moving papers. On the denial of the first motion no leave to renew was asked or granted. The Defendant af-terwards made another motion for leave’ to make a case. Both motions were…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court —
FlaNdbau, J.
— The time to serve the proposed case had expired, and the application for leave to serve a case after the prescribed time, was addressed to the favor of the Court, and was not based upon any right of the Defendant. The granting or refusal of such applications are always within the discretion of the Court, and such decisions are not appealable. 1 Selden, 547. The Court in that case held a motion for leave to file exceptions to the report of a referee after the statute time had expired, was addressed to the discretion of the Court, and an order denying it was not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morrison v. MarchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1860
3Cited by2 opinions
- Haskins v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Goodrich v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1865