Wood v. Wood
Supreme Court of Minnesota
After the former appeal reported in. 137 Minn. 252,163 N. W. 297, ap-pellant obtained from the district court for Le Sueur county an order requiring respondent to show cause why a new trial should not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The application was heard and denied, Tifft, J. From the order denying the application, appellant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.
The facts of this case are stated in the opinion filed on the former appeal, 137 Minn. 252, 163 N W. 297. Eespondent is 62 years old, below normal in mentality, and physically incapable of earning a living. He has about $2,700 due him in cash. His only other property is a small cottage worth $350 and rented for $3 a month. The district court denied his brother’s petition for a guardian, moved largely by the fact that there was no evidence having any tendency to show that any of the money due respondent had been or would be dissipated. This court held that the evidence would sustain a finding…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Guth v. BellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1911
- Peck v. SmallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Wood v. WoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
- Stauffer v. MartinIndiana Court of Appeals · 1909
3Cited by10 opinions
- Bolander v. BolanderCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
- State v. DingmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Mitchell v. BazilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Trickel v. CalvinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
- Valencia v. Markham Co-Operative Assn.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.