Bishop Iron Co. v. Hyde

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Bishop Iron Co. v. Hyde

74 N.W. 1016, 72 Minn. 16, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 609

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 22, 1898

DocketNos. 10,959-(56)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 N.W. 1016 (Bishop Iron Co. v. Hyde) 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

Bishop Iron Co. v. Hyde, 74 N.W. 1016, 72 Minn. 16, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 609 (Mich. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

MITCHELL, J.

Every question presented by the first ten assignments of error is covered by the decision on the former appeal (66 Minn. 24, 68 N. W. 95).

By the eleventh assignment of error it is sought to make the point that the judgment entered by the clerk in favor of the respondents, other than the plaintiff, was not the proper one to enter upon the order sustaining their demurrer to the defendants’ cross bill. The error complained of was not that of the court, but that of the clerk, and the remedy is not by appeal from the judgment, but by application to the trial court to have the judgment corrected; and, unless the power of that court has been thus invoked, this court will not consider the question on appeal from the judgment. Scott v. Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 179, 43 N. W. 966.

Judgment affirmed.

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

MITCHELL, J.

Every question presented by the first ten assignments of error is covered by the decision on the former appeal (66 Minn. 24, 68 N. W. 95).

By the eleventh assignment of error it is sought to make the point that the judgment entered by the clerk in favor of the respondents, other than the plaintiff, was not the proper one to enter upon the order sustaining their demurrer to the defendants’ cross bill. The error complained of was not that of the court, but that of the clerk, and the remedy is not by appeal from the judgment, but by application to the trial court to have the judgment corrected; and, unless the power of that court has been thus invoked, this court will not consider the question on appeal from the judgment. Scott v. Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 179, 43 N. W. 966.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 N.W. 1016, 72 Minn. 16, 1898 Minn. LEXIS 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-iron-co-v-hyde-minn-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack