Abrahams v. Sheehan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Abrahams v. Sheehan

7 N.W. 822, 27 Minn. 401, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 11

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 7, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 7 N.W. 822 (Abrahams v. Sheehan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abrahams v. Sheehan, 7 N.W. 822, 27 Minn. 401, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 11 (Mich. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

In this case the “statement of the case,” though stipulated by the attorneys for the respective parties, was not allowed and signed by the judge. The objection ia made here by the respondents that no exceptions appearing only on the statement can be considered here, because it is not. signed by the judge. The point is well taken. The statute expressly provides for allowance and signature by the judge, (Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 255,) and we do not think it can be dispensed with. Leonard v. Warriner, 20 Wis. 41.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gilfillan, C. J.

In this case the “statement of the case,” though stipulated by the attorneys for the respective parties, was not allowed and signed by the judge. The objection ia made here by the respondents that no exceptions appearing only on the statement can be considered here, because it is not. signed by the judge. The point is well taken. The statute expressly provides for allowance and signature by the judge, (Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 255,) and we do not think it can be dispensed with. Leonard v. Warriner, 20 Wis. 41.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 N.W. 822, 27 Minn. 401, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abrahams-v-sheehan-minn-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack