Billson v. Lardner

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Billson v. Lardner

69 N.W. 477, 67 Minn. 35, 1896 Minn. LEXIS 336

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 24, 1896

DocketNos. 10,388—(107)

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 69 N.W. 477 (Billson v. Lardner) 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

Billson v. Lardner, 69 N.W. 477, 67 Minn. 35, 1896 Minn. LEXIS 336 (Mich. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

BUCK, J.

Upon the merits this case is controlled by that of Wolf v. McKinley, 65 Minn. 156, 68 N. W. 3.

Upon the question of. practice it appears that the trial court made its findings of fact and the order thereon on February 6, 1896, and filed the same February 7, 1896. Subsequently, pursuant to an agreement made between the respective attorneys, amended findings and an order thereon were made by the trial court, and substituted for the original findings, the order bearing date February 21, 1896, and filed February 26,1896. There was some controversy as to the extent and materiality of the additional findings, but, so long as they stood as the completed findings and final order of the court upon the merits, .they must be deemed as the only ones legally in force. The last findings had attached an order for 20 days’ stay. The appeal, therefore, could be taken from the order dated February 21,' 1896, within 30 days after written notice of the same.

[36]*36As the order made herein by the trial court is in conflict with the decision of this court made in the case of Wolf v. McKinley, it is hereby reversed, and the case remanded to the district court of St. Louis county, and said court'directed to amend its conclusions of law, and cause an order to be entered therein awarding to the defendant William P. Lardner, as assignee of William McKinley, insolvent, the funds in controversy.

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

BUCK, J.

Upon the merits this case is controlled by that of Wolf v. McKinley, 65 Minn. 156, 68 N. W. 3.

Upon the question of. practice it appears that the trial court made its findings of fact and the order thereon on February 6, 1896, and filed the same February 7, 1896. Subsequently, pursuant to an agreement made between the respective attorneys, amended findings and an order thereon were made by the trial court, and substituted for the original findings, the order bearing date February 21, 1896, and filed February 26,1896. There was some controversy as to the extent and materiality of the additional findings, but, so long as they stood as the completed findings and final order of the court upon the merits, .they must be deemed as the only ones legally in force. The last findings had attached an order for 20 days’ stay. The appeal, therefore, could be taken from the order dated February 21,' 1896, within 30 days after written notice of the same.

[36]*36As the order made herein by the trial court is in conflict with the decision of this court made in the case of Wolf v. McKinley, it is hereby reversed, and the case remanded to the district court of St. Louis county, and said court'directed to amend its conclusions of law, and cause an order to be entered therein awarding to the defendant William P. Lardner, as assignee of William McKinley, insolvent, the funds in controversy.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 N.W. 477, 67 Minn. 35, 1896 Minn. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billson-v-lardner-minn-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack