Wieland v. Shillock
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Stearns, J., presiding, sustaining the defendant Shillock’s demurrer to the complaint. The demurrer was for want of jurisdiction of the court over the subject of the action, and for failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, and was sustained on the former ground.
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
On April 28, 1869, the present defendant, Shillock, recovered a money judgment, by default, in an action brought by him against the present plaintiffs, in the *228district court for Hennepin county. The present action is brought in the district court for St. Louis county, for the purpose of enjoining the collection of the judgment, upon the ground that it was procured by certain alleged fraudulent practices, and false testimony of the defendant Shillock before the referee by whom the damages were assessed in the action wherein the judgment was recovered. The complaint shows that the plaintiffs…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Kipp v. ClingerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Geisberg v. O'LaughlinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co. v. HolzNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Kitzman v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Brand v. BakerOregon Supreme Court · 1903
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.