Stratton v. Allen
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY. The complaint charged that on the 6th day of January, 1857, Plaintiffs were the owners and possessed of. certain personal property, (describing the same,) and that on said day “the said Defendant became possessed of and wrongfully detained from them, said Plaintiffs,' said personal property, of the value,” &c. There was no allegation of a demand or refusal. Defendants answered, and Plaintiffs demurred to the answer.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY. The complaint charged that on the 6th day of January, 1857, Plaintiffs were the owners and possessed of. certain personal property, (describing the same,) and that on said day “the said Defendant became possessed of and wrongfully detained from them, said Plaintiffs,' said personal property, of the value,” &c. There was no allegation of a demand or refusal. Defendants answered, and Plaintiffs demurred to the answer. The demurrer was sustained by the Court below, and judgment entered in favor of-the Plaintiff for a return, &c. Defendant renews by…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
Emmett, C. J.
There was a demurrer in this case to the answer, but the Defendant, below-insists that the complaint is radically defective, in that it appears thereby that the Court had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action, (the value of the property being stated at ninety-nine dollars only, and no damages alleged), and because it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Both parties have confined their arguments to these alleged defects of the complaint.
Note. — This case should have been reported in volume six, as it was -deoided in the December Term…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lowry v. HarrisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1867
- Roberts v. NorrisIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
- Oleson v. MerrillWisconsin Supreme Court · 1866