Gederholm v. Davies

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Gederholm v. Davies

60 N.W. 676, 59 Minn. 1, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 100

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 30, 1894

DocketNo. 9203

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 N.W. 676 (Gederholm v. Davies) 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

Gederholm v. Davies, 60 N.W. 676, 59 Minn. 1, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 100 (Mich. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Collins, J.

"Whether the postponement of the hearing of plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendant’s answer as sham, and for judg[3]*3ment, was regular or irregular, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. The order for judgment was made on default, and, before appealing to this court, it was incumbent upon defendant’s counsel to apply for relief to the court making such order. Judgment affirmed.

(Opinion published 60 N. W. 676.)

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

Collins, J.

"Whether the postponement of the hearing of plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendant’s answer as sham, and for judg[3]*3ment, was regular or irregular, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. The order for judgment was made on default, and, before appealing to this court, it was incumbent upon defendant’s counsel to apply for relief to the court making such order. Judgment affirmed.

(Opinion published 60 N. W. 676.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 N.W. 676, 59 Minn. 1, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gederholm-v-davies-minn-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack