McFarland v. Butler
Supreme Court of Minnesota
I. The appellant was entitled to written notice of all proceedings in the action: Sec. 21, Pub. Stat. p. 627; Sec. 26, Pub. Stat. p. 628. II. Eespondent should have paid the judgment against him before he moved in the action. 6 Minn. 53. III. The ground on which the motion to dismiss was granted, does not authorize it. 1. The statute does not require the justice’s docket to show that any affidavit was made. Sec. 7, Subdv. 9, Pub.
Read the full summary
I. The appellant was entitled to written notice of all proceedings in the action: Sec. 21, Pub. Stat. p. 627; Sec. 26, Pub. Stat. p. 628. II. Eespondent should have paid the judgment against him before he moved in the action. 6 Minn. 53. III. The ground on which the motion to dismiss was granted, does not authorize it. 1. The statute does not require the justice’s docket to show that any affidavit was made. Sec. 7, Subdv. 9, Pub. Stat. p. 498, 499. 2. On an appeal being made, the party appealing is required to make, execute and file certain papers, but the justice’s return is not required to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Gowrt
Derry, J.
This action was originally commenced before a justice of the peace, from whose judgment an appeal was attempted to betaken to the District Court. One John L. McDonald appeared as attorney for the defendant, (now appellant,) both before the justice and in the District *76court, aud was so recorded. In the latter court, A. E. Cape-hart was associated with him as attorney, and took charge of the case in the Supreme Court, where it was carried by appeal. No written notice of the substitution of Capehart as attorney in place of McDonald, was given to the respondent.
Our statute on…
2Cited by4 opinions
- In Re Petition of SchallerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
- Stolt v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Knight v. ElliottSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- Larrabee v. MorrisonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1870