D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Gray

Supreme Court of Minnesota

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Gray

19 N.W. 81, 32 Minn. 53, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 80

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 21, 1884

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 19 N.W. 81 (D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Gray) 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

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Gray, 19 N.W. 81, 32 Minn. 53, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 80 (Mich. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court. 1

Where, in a bill of costs offered for adjustment, are items for witnesses who, for any cause, were not sworn, if the items are objected to, an affidavit showing the attendance and travel of the witnesses, and stating that they were “necessary and material,” is not sufficient. There must be an affidavit stating facts which show the necessity of having them in attendance, which affidavit the party may furnish when the items are objected to.

Judgment affirmed.

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

By the Court. 1

Where, in a bill of costs offered for adjustment, are items for witnesses who, for any cause, were not sworn, if the items are objected to, an affidavit showing the attendance and travel of the witnesses, and stating that they were “necessary and material,” is not sufficient. There must be an affidavit stating facts which show the necessity of having them in attendance, which affidavit the party may furnish when the items are objected to.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 N.W. 81, 32 Minn. 53, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/d-m-osborne-co-v-gray-minn-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack