Legal Opinion

Unowsky v. Show

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 23, 1925No. 24,381PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.

Judgment was entered against the defendants by default. On their motion it was vacated with leave to answer. The plaintiff appeals.

Upon the service of the summons the defendants engaged counsel. He prepared answers. Through inadvertence they were placed in his office files and were not served. Promptly upon notice of the entry of judgment this motion was made. There was no substantial prejudice to the plaintiff. The trial court exercised its discretion wisely, if it was properly invoked, in vacating the judgment and permitting a defense. Rodgers v. U. S. & D. Ins. Co. 127 Minn. 435, 149 N. W.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Rodgers v. United States & Dominion Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
  2. Grady v. Maurice L. Rothschild & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1920

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Vrooman Floor Covering Inc. v. DorseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
  2. Coller v. Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church of ChaskaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. Kennedy v. TorodorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  4. Cowing v. CowingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API