Dorr v. McDonald

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Dorr v. McDonald

45 N.W. 864, 43 Minn. 458, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 238

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 11, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 N.W. 864 (Dorr v. McDonald) 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

Dorr v. McDonald, 45 N.W. 864, 43 Minn. 458, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 238 (Mich. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

In an action for unlawful detainer, plaintiff’s counsel drew a very poor complaint. But the defendant, without objection to it, joined issue and went to trial on the merits, and, being defeated, on appeal from the judgment, now, for the first time, raises an objection to the sufficiency of the complaint. In the absence of a case or bill of exceptions, we will presume that defendant voluntarily consented to the trial of all the issues involved in the verdict that plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the premises. As against an objection interposed at this stage of the proceedings, the [459]*459complaint should be held sufficient. Within the rule of Smith v. Dennett, 15 Minn. 59, (81,) we think that it is fairly inferable by reasonable intendment from what is alleged that, while the original letting was for only a month, the defendant continued in the occupancy of the premises as tenant from month to month. Indeed, if it was necessary, in order to sustain the judgment, we would be justified, under the circumstances, in directing the court below to permit the complaint to be amended so as to conform to the facts proved.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mitchell, J.

In an action for unlawful detainer, plaintiff’s counsel drew a very poor complaint. But the defendant, without objection to it, joined issue and went to trial on the merits, and, being defeated, on appeal from the judgment, now, for the first time, raises an objection to the sufficiency of the complaint. In the absence of a case or bill of exceptions, we will presume that defendant voluntarily consented to the trial of all the issues involved in the verdict that plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the premises. As against an objection interposed at this stage of the proceedings, the [459]*459complaint should be held sufficient. Within the rule of Smith v. Dennett, 15 Minn. 59, (81,) we think that it is fairly inferable by reasonable intendment from what is alleged that, while the original letting was for only a month, the defendant continued in the occupancy of the premises as tenant from month to month. Indeed, if it was necessary, in order to sustain the judgment, we would be justified, under the circumstances, in directing the court below to permit the complaint to be amended so as to conform to the facts proved.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 N.W. 864, 43 Minn. 458, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorr-v-mcdonald-minn-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack