Cleland v. Tavernier
Supreme Court of Minnesota
■ This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for Bamsey county, denying a motion to set aside the judgment, process, &c., in this action. The summons was served by publication and a writ oí attachment had issued; judgment was entered by default, and an execution issued, under which the properly attached was seized and sold.
Read the full summary
■ This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for Bamsey county, denying a motion to set aside the judgment, process, &c., in this action. The summons was served by publication and a writ oí attachment had issued; judgment was entered by default, and an execution issued, under which the properly attached was seized and sold. The grounds upon which the motion was made, are as follows : 1st. That the summons did not conform to the constitution, in that it was not styled “ The State of Minnesota.” 2d. “That the writ of attachment was void, because allowed by the clerk instead of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Gov/rt
McMillan, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment. The defendant urges three grounds of error, which we notice in their order.
1. “The summons did not conform to the constitution in that it was not styled ‘The State of Minnesota,’ to the defendant.” The summons after the address to the defendant, proceeds, “You are hereby summoned and required m the name of the State of Minnesota, to answer,” &c. This is a sub*196stantial compliance with Sec. 14, Art. 6, of the constitution. The same question was thus determined by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Silver Camp Mining Co. v. DickertMontana Supreme Court · 1904
- Wein v. Crockett, Dist. JudgeUtah Supreme Court · 1948
- Hartzell v. VigenNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- City of Murfreesboro v. BowlesTennessee Supreme Court · 1948