Fifield v. Norton
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant Hart from an order of the district court for Benton county, Searle, J., denying a motion to vacate a judgment and for leave to answer.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Action to determine adverse claims to real estate. The summons was served by publication under and pursuant to G. S. 1894, § 5204, on the ground that defendants were not residents of the state. A proper affidavit was made and filed, together with a cer*265tificate of the sheriff of the county in which the action was brought to the effect that defendants could not be found therein, and the summons was published in accordance with the provisions of the statute. There was no appearance by any of the defendants, and default judgment was entered for plaintiff July 29, 1899. On September 80, 1899,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lord v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Bank of Farmington v. EllisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Roussain v. PattenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Bausman v. TilleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Boeing v. McKinleySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
3Cited by13 opinions
- Miller v. HennenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Kipp v. ClingerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
- Bogart v. KieneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Engenmoen v. LutroeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Republic National Life Insurance v. Marquette Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.