Kent v. Bown
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. The following are the points and authorities relied upon by the Counsel for the Plaintiff in Error: First. — The said District Court erred in rendering judgment for a greater amount than the sum expressed in the promissory note described in the complaint, and interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent, per annum.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. The following are the points and authorities relied upon by the Counsel for the Plaintiff in Error: First. — The said District Court erred in rendering judgment for a greater amount than the sum expressed in the promissory note described in the complaint, and interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent, per annum. Second. — The said District Court erred in taxing and rendering judgment for the sum of $29 as statute costs to said Defendant in Error. The following are the points and authorities relied upon by the Counsel for the Defendant in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
— Flandrau, J.
This action was upon a promis*350sory note, drawing no interest before, but five per cent, per month after maturity, and the Defendant put in an answer, to what effect does not appear, nor is it material. On the 15th day of March, 1859, at a general term of the District Court of B,amsey County, the “case came on to be tried, and thereupon the Defendant withdrew the answer in said cause, and thereupon submitted the same to the Court for assessment of damages, upon the complaint, and the Defendant then and there objected to the Court rendering judgment, or assessing the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Andrews v. CressySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1858
3Cited by4 opinions
- Mullins v. Ritchie Grocer CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Newell v. HoultonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Capen v. CrowellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1877
- Mullins v. Ritchie Grocer CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931