Palmer Fruit Co. v. Palmer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Per curiam
The appeal is from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes of the court.
The respondent makes the point that the order must be affirmed because there is no properly settled case. When the order was filed on April 24, 1923, there was no settled case. The appeal was perfected in June, 1923. The files show no notice to settle a case and no stipulation to settle one, but does show that in October, 1923, the court appended to the stenographer’s transcript an order that it sho'uld stand for a settled case. The certificate fails to state that it contains all- the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Westling v. City of St. Louis ParkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
- Konkel v. FortSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Fruit Company v. Palmer and AnotherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Hammond v. Flour City Coal and Oil Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1944