Brackett v. Dayton
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Judgment was entered in the district court for Bamsey county on October 14,1882, in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant in this action, which was brought upon a judgment rendered in 1872. On December 8, 1883, the defendant made application to the court to vacate the judgment, upon the ground that the plaintiffs were not the holders of the claim sued .upon, or to stay execution and all proceedings under the judgment to .await the determination of the question of the…
Read the full summary
Judgment was entered in the district court for Bamsey county on October 14,1882, in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant in this action, which was brought upon a judgment rendered in 1872. On December 8, 1883, the defendant made application to the court to vacate the judgment, upon the ground that the plaintiffs were not the holders of the claim sued .upon, or to stay execution and all proceedings under the judgment to .await the determination of the question of the defendant’s discharge as a bankrupt; and he appeals from an order by Brill, J., denying his motion.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
Appeal from an' order denying a motion to vacate and set aside a judgment. One of the grounds on which the motion was made was that plaintiffs were not the owners of the note or debt out of which this judgment sprang. The record shows that this had become res adjudicata between the parties twice before this action was ever brought. This is a conclusive reason, to say nothing of ■others, why the judgment should not be vacated on any such ground.
The second ground upon which defendant moved to have the judgment vacated was the fact of the pendency of bankruptcy proceedings in the United States…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eyster v. GaffSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Davis v. FriedlanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cleveland v. JohnsonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893