Closen v. Allen

12 N.W. 146, 29 Minn. 86, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 46
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided March 28, 1882·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Berry, J.

Plaintiffs having recovered, in justice’s court, a judgment against defendant for $11.62, the latter appealed to the proper district court, upon questions of law alone. The district court, upon trial, gave judgment, on November 28, 1879, for plaintiffs, for the [87] amount of the justice’s judgment, with costs and disbursements. On December 17, 1879, the clerk, on due notice, taxed, among other items, “costs by statute, $10.” Defendant objected and appealed. The appeal was heard April 6, 1880, and on dune 7, 1880, an order made by the court affirming the taxation. September 29, 1S80, plaintiffs served on defendant notice of the affirming order/and on October 28, 1880, defendant appealed from the order to this court.

Plaintiffs insist that the order is not appealable, and in this they are supported by Minnesota Valley R. Co. v. Flynn, 14 Minn. 552. In this case, as in that, the taxation and its affirmation were in accordance with the judgment, and the objection is one which goes to the judgment, and not to the taxation. This appeal must accordingly be dismissed. We call attention, however, to the fact that the question as to the propriety of taxing the item objected to is decided in favor of the taxation made and affirmed in this case, in Watson v. Ward, 27 Minn. 29.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Closen v. Allen, 12 N.W. 146, 29 Minn. 86, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 46 (Mich. 1882).

12 N.W. 146 (Closen v. Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cox v. Selover
225 N.W. 282 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1929)
Treat v. Court Minnesota, No. 17
123 N.W. 62 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1909)
In re Eaton
74 N.W. 870 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1898)
Richardson v. Rogers
35 N.W. 270 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1887)