Hooper & Frazier v. J. L. Farwell & Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
WRIT OR ERROR TO TIIE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. Tlie following are the- points and authorities relied upon by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs in Error : First. — The Plaintiffs in effect dismissed as to Hooper in the Justice’s Court, by suffering him to give evidence in his own defence, although he had not answered in the action. The judgment of the Justice was a dismissal as to Hooper. Second. — The District Court ha4 no jurisdiction of Hooper.
Read the full summary
WRIT OR ERROR TO TIIE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. Tlie following are the- points and authorities relied upon by the Counsel for the Plaintiffs in Error : First. — The Plaintiffs in effect dismissed as to Hooper in the Justice’s Court, by suffering him to give evidence in his own defence, although he had not answered in the action. The judgment of the Justice was a dismissal as to Hooper. Second. — The District Court ha4 no jurisdiction of Hooper. No party can appeal from a Justice’s judgment unless he is aggrieved thereby. Rev. Stat., p. 315, Sec. 123. Wo judgment was rendered in the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Gov/rt
— Flandrau, J.
Both Hooper and Frazier, the Defendants in the Justice’s Court, were personally served with the process, Hooper alone appeared and swore that he had no interest in the matter, and was not and never had been *108a partner* of the Defendant, Frazier. The Justice rendered judgment against Frazier alone for the amount of the Plaintiffs’ claim. Whether he had any right to render such judgment, or should have found for the Defendants, is of no interest here, and will not be considered, as the appeal brings the case into the District Court, in the exact condition it was in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Johnson v. LoughSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- D. M. Osborne & Co. v. StoneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Equity Savings & Loan Co. v. BoisfontaineSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1905