Lough v. Pitman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action, in 1877, in the district court for Scott county, alleging, in his complaint, that one William Pitman, in his lifetime, and on December 19,1870, recovered judgment, in the same court, against the defendant, which is still in force and unsatisfied; that since the docketing of the judgment, William Pitman has died, and the plaintiff is his duly appointed and qualified administrator, under letters issued on July 8, 1871. The prayer of the complaint…
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action, in 1877, in the district court for Scott county, alleging, in his complaint, that one William Pitman, in his lifetime, and on December 19,1870, recovered judgment, in the same court, against the defendant, which is still in force and unsatisfied; that since the docketing of the judgment, William Pitman has died, and the plaintiff is his duly appointed and qualified administrator, under letters issued on July 8, 1871. The prayer of the complaint is that execution on the judgment may issue in the name of the plaintiff. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled by…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
Gen. St., c. 66, § 13, enacts that an action “is deemed to be pending from the time of its commencement until its final determination upon appeal, or until the time for an appeal has passed, and the judgment has been satisfied.” Section 36 of the same chapter, as amended by Laws 1876, c. 46, provides that an action does not abate by the death of a party if the cause of action survives or continues, and that, in ease of the death of a party, the court, on motion, may allow the action to be continued by or against his representatives. Under these provisions of statute, where a judgment has been…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Halloran v. BLUE AND WHITE LIBERTY CAB CO. INC.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Willoughby v. St. Paul German InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Rhodes v. BerryhillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928