Homberger v. Brandenberg
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Otter Tail county, to recover the value of wheat alleged to have been unlawfully taken and converted. The defendant justified his taking, as sheriff of the county, under a writ of attachment against Jacob Hom-berger. Upon the call of the calendar the defendant moved to strike the case from the calendar, because of want of notice of trial.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Otter Tail county, to recover the value of wheat alleged to have been unlawfully taken and converted. The defendant justified his taking, as sheriff of the county, under a writ of attachment against Jacob Hom-berger. Upon the call of the calendar the defendant moved to strike the case from the calendar, because of want of notice of trial. It appearing that a notice of trial had been served, and a note of issue filed, both containing the name of Jacob Homberger as plaintiff, instead of Frederick Homberger, and that defendant had not been…
1Opinion of the CourtVanderburgh, J.
1. The plaintiff’s attorneys filed a note of issue, entitled “Jacob Homberger” instead of “Frederick Homberger,” against this defendant, and the case was so entered -upon the calendar by the clerk. Jacob is alleged in the answer herein to be the owner of the property in controversy, but there was no case pending between him and this defendant, and it is apparent that the use of his name as plaintiff was a clerical error; and, as the defendant expressly admitted that he was not misled, we think the motion to strike from the calendar was properly denied.
2. The defendant also objected to the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bruce v. County Commissioners of Dodge CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Bowers v. MayoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brandenburg v. Northwestern Jobbers Credit BureauSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Riddell v. MunroSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892