Arnold v. Visenaux
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Lake county to determine adverse claims. Joseph Visenaux, otherwise known as Joseph Vezina, moved to set aside the judgment so far as it affected his interest in an undivided two-thirds of certain land described on the ground that the judgment was entered without service of any summons or complaint, without any appearance on the part of defendant, and was without jurisdiction and void.
Read the full summary
Action in the district court for Lake county to determine adverse claims. Joseph Visenaux, otherwise known as Joseph Vezina, moved to set aside the judgment so far as it affected his interest in an undivided two-thirds of certain land described on the ground that the judgment was entered without service of any summons or complaint, without any appearance on the part of defendant, and was without jurisdiction and void. The motion was heard and granted by Cant, J. Erom the order setting aside the judgment as to defendant Joseph Vezina, and from an order denying the motion of Henry Bielli and…
1Opinion of the Court
Dibell, C.
Appeal from an order entered January 25, 1913, vacating as void for want of jurisdiction a judgment entered December 9, 1909, in favor of the plaintiff and against Joseph Visenaux and others; and from an order of June 7, 1913, refusing to vacate the first mentioned order.
On December 21, 1891, one Joseph Vezina received from the United States, under the name of Joseph Visenaux, a patent to cer*271tain lands in Lake county involved in this action. In September, 1909, the plaintiff commenced an action against Visenaux and others to determine adverse claims. There was no personal service.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bergman v. American National BankWyoming Supreme Court · 1944
- Van Rhee v. DysertSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Wiik v. RussellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Bailey v. Metropolitan CouncilDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2019