William Deering & Co. v. Burke
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by William Deering & Co. from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Simpson, J., denying its motion for an order requiring A. E. Randall, sheriff of Big Stone county, to pay to it, or its attorney, the amount of the judgment entered in its favor against defendant Thomas F. Burke ($108.42), with interest and costs thereon, and the costs of the proceeding.
Read the full summary
Appeal by William Deering & Co. from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Simpson, J., denying its motion for an order requiring A. E. Randall, sheriff of Big Stone county, to pay to it, or its attorney, the amount of the judgment entered in its favor against defendant Thomas F. Burke ($108.42), with interest and costs thereon, and the costs of the proceeding. The counter affidavit of the sheriff mentioned in the opinion set up that, at the time the first execution was delivered to him, both the sheriff and all his deputies were necessarily in attendance upon the sessions of…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
In Hull v. Chapel, 71 Minn. 408, 74 N. W. 156, it was held that G. S. 1894, § 788, which provides for proceeding against a sheriff in a summary manner by order to show cause for failure to pay over money which he has received by virtue of his office, as for a contempt, being penal, was not designed to embrace cases where the fact of the sheriff’s duty or liability is fairly and reasonably open to dispute. It only applies when it is the sheriff’s plain and undisputed duty to pay, and his neglect wilful. If there is a well-grounded doubt of the sheriff’s duty, or his liability, or whether the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hull v. ChapelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
3Cited by4 opinions
- Craig v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- E. J. Beach & Sons v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- J. H. Allen & Co. v. ChristensenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Roche v. DunnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906