Fallman v. Gilman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
This was an action of forcible entry and detainer under Chapter 87, Revised Statutes, commenced before a Justice of the Peace of Washington County. The complaint charged that the Defendants forcibly entered and did detain certain lands, describing them, and demanded restitution of the premises. The summons was served by reading it in the presence of the Defendants. There was no appearance on the part of the Defendants before the Justice.
Read the full summary
This was an action of forcible entry and detainer under Chapter 87, Revised Statutes, commenced before a Justice of the Peace of Washington County. The complaint charged that the Defendants forcibly entered and did detain certain lands, describing them, and demanded restitution of the premises. The summons was served by reading it in the presence of the Defendants. There was no appearance on the part of the Defendants before the Justice. The Justice allowed restitution and fined the Defendants $30, and judgment was rendered accordingly with costs. The Defendants appealed from the judgment to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Chatfield, J.
This action was commenced before a Justice of the Peace by the Defendant in Error against the Plaintiffs in Error, under the Statute “ of Forcible Entries and Detainers.” Rev. Stat. Chap. 87.
The complaint before the Justice was manifestly and fatally defective, and the summons issued by him, was not served in the manner prescribed by the Statute.
Hie Defendants below did not appear before the Justice and the Plaintiff there proceeded to a hearing. Hpon that hearing the Justice rendered judgment against the Defendants, for restitution, for a fine of thirty dollars and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Thomas Gemmell, Inc. v. Svea Fire & Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Virginia · 1936
- Montgomery Ward & Co. v. HerrmannCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1948
- Bryan v. FarnsworthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872