Dols v. Baumhoefer

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Dols v. Baumhoefer

10 N.W. 420, 28 Minn. 387, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 277

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 29, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 N.W. 420 (Dols v. Baumhoefer) 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

Dols v. Baumhoefer, 10 N.W. 420, 28 Minn. 387, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 277 (Mich. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

Appellant Baumhoefer was sued by the name of Baumhager, with the other defendant, upon a promissory note made by them to plaintiff. The defendant served notice of appearance, and also an answer denying each and every allegation in the complaint. Whereupon the plaintiff procured from the judge of the district court an order requiring defendants, at a time and place specified, to show cause why the proceedings should not be amended by inserting appellant’s true name in the place of the name by which he was sued, and why the answer should not be struck out as sham and false, and plaintiff have judgment. The order, with the affidavits on which it was issued, was duly served, and, at the time and place appointed, neither of the defendants appearing to oppose, and the plaintiff appearing, the relief sought by the order was granted, the proposed amendment was ordered, the answer struck out as sham and false, and judgment ordered for plaintiff, and judgment entered accordingly. From the judgment this appeal is taken.

The error alleged is in the making of the order amending the proceedings, striking out the answer, and for judgment. That order was granted by default, and without a decision upon the merits of the application, under rule 10 of the rules of the district court, which reads: “Whenever notice of a motion shall be given, or an order to show cause served, and no one shall appear to oppose the motion or application, the moving party shall be entitled, on filing proof or admission of service, to the relief or order sought, unless the court shall [388]*388otherwise direct.” In such case the non-appearance is taken as a consent that the relief sought shall be granted. If it is not so intended, the proper remedy is by application to the district court, where the default may be explained and the order opened for examination on its .merits. Without such application this court will not review an order so granted by default. Johnson v. Howard, 25 Minn. 558.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

Appellant Baumhoefer was sued by the name of Baumhager, with the other defendant, upon a promissory note made by them to plaintiff. The defendant served notice of appearance, and also an answer denying each and every allegation in the complaint. Whereupon the plaintiff procured from the judge of the district court an order requiring defendants, at a time and place specified, to show cause why the proceedings should not be amended by inserting appellant’s true name in the place of the name by which he was sued, and why the answer should not be struck out as sham and false, and plaintiff have judgment. The order, with the affidavits on which it was issued, was duly served, and, at the time and place appointed, neither of the defendants appearing to oppose, and the plaintiff appearing, the relief sought by the order was granted, the proposed amendment was ordered, the answer struck out as sham and false, and judgment ordered for plaintiff, and judgment entered accordingly. From the judgment this appeal is taken.

The error alleged is in the making of the order amending the proceedings, striking out the answer, and for judgment. That order was granted by default, and without a decision upon the merits of the application, under rule 10 of the rules of the district court, which reads: “Whenever notice of a motion shall be given, or an order to show cause served, and no one shall appear to oppose the motion or application, the moving party shall be entitled, on filing proof or admission of service, to the relief or order sought, unless the court shall [388]*388otherwise direct.” In such case the non-appearance is taken as a consent that the relief sought shall be granted. If it is not so intended, the proper remedy is by application to the district court, where the default may be explained and the order opened for examination on its .merits. Without such application this court will not review an order so granted by default. Johnson v. Howard, 25 Minn. 558.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 N.W. 420, 28 Minn. 387, 1881 Minn. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dols-v-baumhoefer-minn-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack