Whitcomb v. Shaffer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
■ This action was commenced against the defendant, who was a non-resident, by the publication of the summons August 9, 1864. The plaintiff in his complaint, alleges, in substance, that in May, 1864, the defendant made a contract with him, swhereby the plaintiff was to make sale of certain lands of defendant in Olmsted county, and was to receive for his services in making such sale the excess above $1,650, and was to have one year in which to make the sale.
Read the full summary
■ This action was commenced against the defendant, who was a non-resident, by the publication of the summons August 9, 1864. The plaintiff in his complaint, alleges, in substance, that in May, 1864, the defendant made a contract with him, swhereby the plaintiff was to make sale of certain lands of defendant in Olmsted county, and was to receive for his services in making such sale the excess above $1,650, and was to have one year in which to make the sale. The agreement was contained in a power of attorney from defendant and wife to plaintiff; that, pursuant to such agreement; he contracted…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Oowrt
Berry, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Olmstead county, setting aside a judgment and subsequent proceedings, and allowing the respondent to come in and answer. Assuming, as is claimed by the counsel for the appellant, that the application for this relief was made under Section 94, page 544, Pub. Stat.. and not under Section 3, page 91, Laws of 1864, it has heretofore been settled in this Court, that such applications are addressed to the discretion of the court below, the exercise of which will not be interfered with, except in cases of palpable abuse.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Merritt v. PutnamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1862
3Cited by1 opinion
- Frasier v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1870