Henry v. Bruns
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action brought in the district court for Clay county, to recover $99.56 and interest. After servive of the answer, (the substance of which is stated in the opinion,) the plaintiffs obtained an order to show cause why they should not be allowed to file security for costs nunc pro tunc, and why they should not thereupon have judgment on the pleadings.
Read the full summary
Action brought in the district court for Clay county, to recover $99.56 and interest. After servive of the answer, (the substance of which is stated in the opinion,) the plaintiffs obtained an order to show cause why they should not be allowed to file security for costs nunc pro tunc, and why they should not thereupon have judgment on the pleadings. After a hearing before Mills, J., it was ordered that plaintiffs have leave to file the security tendered by them, and that upon such filing they have judgment as prayed in the complaint unless the. defendant serve an amended answer within 10 days…
1Opinion of the CourtGilfillan, C. J.
The defendant, for answer to the complaint, allegedthat plaintiffs are-non-residents, and have not filed the security for costs required by statute; and. that he demanded in writing a copy of plaintiffs’ account, and they did not serve the same within the time required by statute; Neither of these is proper matter of answer. Neither goes to the-jurisdiction of the court,-or is a defence to the cause of action. For failure to file security for costs, the remedy is pointed out by Gen. St. 1878, c. 67, § 20. It is by motion for a stay of proceedings or for a dismissal. The remedy for failure to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Fowler v. FowlerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1905
- Anderson v. M. Burg & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Jones v. Northern Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- Stebbins v. Friend, Crosby & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929