Davies v. Von Berg

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Davies v. Von Berg

82 N.W. 311, 79 Minn. 233, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 758

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 12, 1900

DocketNos. 12,046-(28)

StatusPublished

This text of 82 N.W. 311 (Davies v. Von Berg) 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

Davies v. Von Berg, 82 N.W. 311, 79 Minn. 233, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 758 (Mich. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.¹

From a judgment rendered against defendant in justice’s court, he appealed on questions of law alone. The justice, in his return to the district court, certified to a full and correct transcript “of all of the evidence given upon the trial.” It is obvious from the return that the evidence, as certified up, was wholly inadequate to warrant the rendition of a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in any amount; and the district court so held,- — reversing the judgment. Counsel for plaintiff readily concedes that, if we are to consider the return as containing all of the evidence, the district court could not do otherwise than reverse. But his contention is that from the whole record it is evident that a part of the evidence was omitted. We cannot agree with him. And if it was the fact, as he claims, an amended return should have been obtained prior to the hearing in district court.

Judgment affirmed, but no statutory costs will be taxed.

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

PER CURIAM.¹

From a judgment rendered against defendant in justice’s court, he appealed on questions of law alone. The justice, in his return to the district court, certified to a full and correct transcript “of all of the evidence given upon the trial.” It is obvious from the return that the evidence, as certified up, was wholly inadequate to warrant the rendition of a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in any amount; and the district court so held,- — reversing the judgment. Counsel for plaintiff readily concedes that, if we are to consider the return as containing all of the evidence, the district court could not do otherwise than reverse. But his contention is that from the whole record it is evident that a part of the evidence was omitted. We cannot agree with him. And if it was the fact, as he claims, an amended return should have been obtained prior to the hearing in district court.

Judgment affirmed, but no statutory costs will be taxed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.W. 311, 79 Minn. 233, 1900 Minn. LEXIS 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davies-v-von-berg-minn-1900.