Laplante v. Knutson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
In this action for the recovery of money there was a default by both defendants. It was due, the record indicates, to the oversight of their then attorney. He moved for a vacation of the judgment entered on the default and for leave to answer. By an order of October 1, 1927, that motion was granted as to defendant Martin Knutson but denied as to defendant Helga Knutson. The denial as to her was upon the ground that the affidavit of merits was not made by her or anyone else having personal knowledge of the facts, and because the showing of a meritorious defense was lacking. See People’s Ice…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People's Ice Co. v. SchlenkerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Heidel v. BenedictSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Kanne v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Fisk v. HicksSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
- Griffin v. JorgensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Barrett v. SmithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Continental Oil Co. v. Osage Oil & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
- State & Port Authority v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
- Wilhelm v. WilhelmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
- Stebbins v. Friend, Crosby & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.