Conrad v. Bauldwin

46 N.W. 850, 44 Minn. 406, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 379
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided October 28, 1890·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

Upon the trial, when the plaintiff rested his case, the court, on motion of defendants, dismissed the action, evidently, [407]*407as appears from the record, upon the ground that the plaintiff hadl failed to establish a cause of action. The judgment entered uporc this order was one of dismissal merely, and not upon the merits» Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 262, subd. 3. Hence, under Gen. St. 1878,. c. 67, § 2, the defendants were only entitled to five dollars statutory-costs. The-cause is therefore remanded, with directions to the court-below to modify the judgment appealed from by deducting therefrom-five dollars. It is ordered, however, that the appellant shall not. recover any costs in this court.

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

Conrad v. Bauldwin, 46 N.W. 850, 44 Minn. 406, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 379 (Mich. 1890).

46 N.W. 850 (Conrad v. Bauldwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mardorf v. Duluth-Superior Transit Co.
256 N.W. 809 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1934)
Woods v. Lindvall
48 F. 62 (Eighth Circuit, 1891)