Legal Opinion
Jacobs v. Queen Ins.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided April 11, 1927No. File No. 6010, 6011PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGates, J.
In No. 6on the appeal is by plaintiffs from an order quashing the summons and denying leave to amend the summons.
The summons was signed as follows:
“Harry A. Hageman, attorney for plaintiffs. Residence, 835 Laurel Ave. Office, 1508 Merchants’ Bank Bldg., St. Paul, Minnesota.”
The body of the summons required defendant “to serve a copy of your answer to the said complaint on the subscriber at his offiice in the city of St. Paul in the county of Ramsey and in the state of Minnesota.”
Mr. Hageman had not been admitted to practice law in the courts of this state. 'Section 2330, Rev. Codei 1919,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hammond-Chandler Lumber Co. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
- Francis v. KnerrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Ramsdell v. DuxberrySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by9 opinions
- Niklaus v. Abel Construction CompanyNebraska Supreme Court · 1957
- Gifford v. BowlingSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1972
- Sara Sirotzky v. New York Stock Exchange and Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003
- In Re Estate of PetersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Hartley v. Jerry's Radio & Electric ShopSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1951
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.