Legal Opinion
Dressel v. Brill
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided July 2, 1926No. 25,325PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
Action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The statute provides:
“The summons shall state that the complaint has been filed with the clerk and shall be of no effect unless such complaint be in fact so filed. It shall contain a notice that the action is brought to foreclose a lien, giving the amount thereof, and a brief description of the premises affected, and of the improvement out of which the lien arose.” G. g. 1923, § 8500.
Defendants Brill, owners of the property, made a motion to set aside the service of the summons for the reason that it failed to' state the amount of the lien or…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lockway v. Modern Woodmen of AmericaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Morrison County Lumber Co. v. DuclosSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
- Farmers Implement Co. v. SandbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Wise v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. Relief DepartmentSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. Van DusenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1935
- Melvey v. BowmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Benson v. BarrettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Hanover State Bank v. BarrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Griffin v. Faribault Fair & Agricultural Ass'nSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938