Groh v. Bassett
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP HENNEPIN COUNTV. I. — The motion being of twofold character, the Court below was not obliged to deny the whole, because part could not be granted. The part of the motion asking for vacation of the judgment is equivalent to a motion for re-examination or new trial; and if there were reasons for granting a new trial, the Court was bound to grant under the motion as made.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP HENNEPIN COUNTV. I. — The motion being of twofold character, the Court below was not obliged to deny the whole, because part could not be granted. The part of the motion asking for vacation of the judgment is equivalent to a motion for re-examination or new trial; and if there were reasons for granting a new trial, the Court was bound to grant under the motion as made. The Court erred in its decision in construing the application as only made under the clause of the statute, providing for relief within a year, in case of “místalee, inadvertance or excusable…
1Opinion of the Court
*328 By the Oowrt
FlaNdeatt, J.
The garnishee, Bassett, was examined on the 23d day of January, 1860, and his disclosure made no case against him. Upon the evidence elicited from him, be would have been discharged, as the indebtedness he acknowledged was on a promissory note which was negotiable. Hubbard vs. Williams, 1 Minn. R., 54. The case was then adjourned until the 18th day of February, 1860. At the adjourned day the garnishee did not appear, and the Plaintiff took the deposition of Elliot, who swore that he had seen the principal Defendant, Mr. Chase, on the 24th of January, 1860, and that…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Marvin v. DutcherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1880
- Conklin v. HindsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Jordan v. Van DuzeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Gardner v. MineaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891