Bowman v. Hekla Fire Insurance

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Bowman v. Hekla Fire Insurance

59 N.W. 943, 58 Minn. 173, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 374

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 13, 1894

DocketNo. 8792

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 N.W. 943 (Bowman v. Hekla Fire Insurance) 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

Bowman v. Hekla Fire Insurance, 59 N.W. 943, 58 Minn. 173, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 374 (Mich. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, 0. J.

It is impossible to distinguish this case from Gunn v. Peakes, 36 Minn. 177, (30 N. W. 466.) The papers and proceedings of the South Carolina court are described in the certificate of the clerk as the “judgment roll,” which appears to have been filed, and contains a full record of the proceedings, in the action, — the complaint or declaration, the summons and proof of service, the verdict, and the judgment. We infer that in South Carolina the common-law practice, to some extent at least, prevails. At common law it was only necessary, to constitute a valid judgment, that it be entered in the roll, and filed, so as to be a record of the court. Docketing or any further proceeding was not necessary, except for certain purposes, such as to bind the defendant’s lands, etc. 4 Chit. Pr. 113.

Order affirmed.

Buck, J., absent, sick, took no part.

(Opinion published 59 N. W. 943.)

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

Gilfillan, 0. J.

It is impossible to distinguish this case from Gunn v. Peakes, 36 Minn. 177, (30 N. W. 466.) The papers and proceedings of the South Carolina court are described in the certificate of the clerk as the “judgment roll,” which appears to have been filed, and contains a full record of the proceedings, in the action, — the complaint or declaration, the summons and proof of service, the verdict, and the judgment. We infer that in South Carolina the common-law practice, to some extent at least, prevails. At common law it was only necessary, to constitute a valid judgment, that it be entered in the roll, and filed, so as to be a record of the court. Docketing or any further proceeding was not necessary, except for certain purposes, such as to bind the defendant’s lands, etc. 4 Chit. Pr. 113.

Order affirmed.

Buck, J., absent, sick, took no part.

(Opinion published 59 N. W. 943.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 N.W. 943, 58 Minn. 173, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-hekla-fire-insurance-minn-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack