Ames v. Schurmeier
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR TO TIIE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities of Plaintiff in Error. I. — The summons was not subscribed, as required by law. II. — There was never any proof presented to the clerk of service of summons, nor of default. Points and authorities of Defendant in Error. The summons was regularly subscribed by the attorney of the Plaintiffbelow.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO TIIE DISTRICT COURT OE RAMSEY COUNTY. Points and authorities of Plaintiff in Error. I. — The summons was not subscribed, as required by law. II. — There was never any proof presented to the clerk of service of summons, nor of default. Points and authorities of Defendant in Error. The summons was regularly subscribed by the attorney of the Plaintiffbelow. It also had the revenue stamp prescribed by act of Congress, though it is respectfully insisted that Congress has no power to tax the process or the proceedings of State courts.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
Emmett, C. J.
The first point made by the Plaintiff in Error involves the construction of see. 49, chap. 60, Comp. Stat., 537, and is the only point which we deem it necessary to notice. The section referred to reads as follows:
“ (49.) The summons must be subscribed by the Plaintiff or his attorney, and directed to the Defendant, requiring him to answer the complaint and serve a copy of his answer on the person *222whose name is subscribed to the summons, at a place within the [State] therein specified, in which there is a post office, within twenty days after the service of the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mezchen v. MoreWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Hotchkiss v. CuttingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869