Plano Manufacturing Co. v. Kaufert
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Mille Lacs county, Baxter, J., denying a motion to set aside service of the summons.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
The summons in this action, so far as here material, is in these words:
“State of Minnesota, ) District Court f ss. County of Mille Lacs) Seventh Judicial District.
The Plano Manufacturing Co., a corporation, and A. H. Steeves, Plaintiffs, vs. Frank Kaufert, Defendant.
Summons.
You are hereby summoned and required to answer the com*14plaint of the plaintiff in the above-entitled action, which complaint is hereto annexed and hereto served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to the said complaint on the subscriber, at his office in the village of Princeton, in said county of Mille Lacs,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Grimes v. BryneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1858
- Strom v. Montana Central Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- McCormick v. FitchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
- First National Bank v. EstensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- Ætna Insurance Co. v. GrubeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Hunt v. Nevada State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
- Clegg v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1940
- Stimson v. StimsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1915
- Ellingson v. Northwestern Jobbers Credit BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1929
- Peterson v. W. Davis & SonsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.