Friesenhahn v. Merrill
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, Daniel D. Merrill, Jr., from an- order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Cornish, J., made March 12, 1892, striking from the files, as frivolous, his demurrer to the complaint. The plaintiff, Anton Friesenhahn, brought an action February 4, 1891, in the District Court of Ramsey county against William M. Bushnell and Alvin R. Bushnell to recover $435.65 which he had intrusted to them.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, Daniel D. Merrill, Jr., from an- order of the District Court of Ramsey County, Cornish, J., made March 12, 1892, striking from the files, as frivolous, his demurrer to the complaint. The plaintiff, Anton Friesenhahn, brought an action February 4, 1891, in the District Court of Ramsey county against William M. Bushnell and Alvin R. Bushnell to recover $435.65 which he had intrusted to them. They answered, and a trial was had on April 22, 1891, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff. The Bushnells made a motion in that action for a new trial thereof, which motion was…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The condition of the bond in suit, which was for a stay upon an appeal to this court from an order denying a new trial, was in the statutory form, and the same as in Reitan v. Goebel, 35 Minn. 384, (29 N. W. Rep. 6.) Hence, as decided in the case cited, the payment of the judgment that maybe entered after the new trial is denied is not within the condition of the bond, unless the benefit of such judgment is lost in consequence of the appeal and stay. In other words, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to allege facts showing that he had sustained damage by reason of being prevented •during the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Reitan v. GoebelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
3Cited by2 opinions
- Estes v. RobertsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Vent v. Duluth Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1899