Dodd v. Cady
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY. Tbe facts in the case appear in the opinion of the Court. The Defendant (the Plaintiff in ‘Error) will rely in argument upon the following points and authorities : Fvrst. The District Court had no jurisdiction of the action, the judgment of the Justice of the Peace being for a sum less than fifteen dollars. Minnesota Statutes, page 315, Sees. 123, 128, 131, page 309, Sec. 31, page 318, Sec. 154. Second.
Read the full summary
ERROR FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RAMSEY COUNTY. Tbe facts in the case appear in the opinion of the Court. The Defendant (the Plaintiff in ‘Error) will rely in argument upon the following points and authorities : Fvrst. The District Court had no jurisdiction of the action, the judgment of the Justice of the Peace being for a sum less than fifteen dollars. Minnesota Statutes, page 315, Sees. 123, 128, 131, page 309, Sec. 31, page 318, Sec. 154. Second. The judgment of the Justice of the Peace and the judgment of the District Court were each for a greater sum than the Plaintiff sued for. Third.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Gowt
Sherburne, J.
This action was brought ■originally before a Justice of the Peace, who gave judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $14.32 damages, and $2.40 costs, of suit, from which an appeal was taken to the District Court, where the judgment below was affirmed; and comes before us upon writ of error.
The only error alleged which we deem material is, “ that “ the District Court had no jurisdiction of the action, the judg- “ ment of the-Justice of the Peace being for a sum less than “ $15.00.”
We are of the opinion that a reasonable construction of the Statute divests both this…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State ex rel. Patterson v. BatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- State ex rel. Foot v. BazilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- State v. SmallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882