Legal Opinion

Miller v. Layne

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 25, 1901No. Nos. 12,682—(37)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal by defendants from an order of tbe district court for Houston county, Kingsley, J., granting a motion for a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

This was an action for damages for trespass to real property. The principal question in the court below was whether the locus in quo was a public highway.

At the time the cause came on for trial, plaintiffs’ attorney moved for a continuance on the ground of the unavoidable absence of plaintiff Michael Miller, and his inability to be present at the trial. The motion was denied, and the cause set for trial at a special term, at which it was tried, and judgment ordered for defendants. Plaintiffs did not renew the motion for continuance at the special term. Thereafter plaintiffs moved for a new…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. NewtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Ricker v. HornSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1883

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. SplettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
  2. Wingen v. MaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API