Althen v. Tarbox

50 N.W. 828, 48 Minn. 1, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 361
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided January 6, 1892·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

(the Chiee Justice taking no part.) Plaintiff herein sought to establish and enforce a mechanic’s lien. By their answer defendants asserted the invalidity of the alleged lien, demanded that it be declared void, and that the same be canceled. On the trial the court dismissed the action upon plaintiff’s application. Treating [3]*3the order of dismissal as effectual, defendants moved for a new trial, and from an order denying the motion they appeal.. The right to dismiss upon the trial was clearly within the discretion of the court, and the record fails to show that there was any abuse of this discretion.

Order affirmed.

(Opinion published 50 N. W. Rep. 828.)

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

Althen v. Tarbox, 50 N.W. 828, 48 Minn. 1, 1892 Minn. LEXIS 361 (Mich. 1892).

50 N.W. 828 (Althen v. Tarbox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Erickson v. Northern Minnesota National Bank of Duluth
50 N.W.2d 489 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1951)
Wallinder v. Weiss
138 N.W. 417 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1912)
Hutchings v. Royal Bakery
118 P. 185 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1911)
Lando v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.
83 N.W. 1089 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)
Pett-Morgan v. Kennedy
64 N.W. 912 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1895)