Freeman v. Rhodes

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Freeman v. Rhodes

30 N.W. 891, 36 Minn. 297, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 314

DecidedDecember 23, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 30 N.W. 891 (Freeman v. Rhodes) 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

Freeman v. Rhodes, 30 N.W. 891, 36 Minn. 297, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 314 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

. Mitchell, J.

The respondents move, under rule 14, for judgment of affirmance, for the reason that there is not prefixed to appellants’ “brief” an assignment of the errors “asserted and intended to be urged,” as required by rule 9 as amended at the October term, 1885. There has been no attempt on part of appellants to comply with this rule. We might have some reluctance to enforce the rule if the points on which they rely were clearly stated anywhere in their brief. But, after a repeated perusal of the brief, we find ourselves utterly unable to determine what the precise errors are of which they complain. [298]*298From this we infer that there is not much in the appeal, otherwise the learned counsel would not have failed to put his points into intelligible form.

The respondents’ motion should be granted.

Order affirmed.

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

. Mitchell, J.

The respondents move, under rule 14, for judgment of affirmance, for the reason that there is not prefixed to appellants’ “brief” an assignment of the errors “asserted and intended to be urged,” as required by rule 9 as amended at the October term, 1885. There has been no attempt on part of appellants to comply with this rule. We might have some reluctance to enforce the rule if the points on which they rely were clearly stated anywhere in their brief. But, after a repeated perusal of the brief, we find ourselves utterly unable to determine what the precise errors are of which they complain. [298]*298From this we infer that there is not much in the appeal, otherwise the learned counsel would not have failed to put his points into intelligible form.

The respondents’ motion should be granted.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.W. 891, 36 Minn. 297, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-rhodes-minn-1886.