Gederholm v. Davies

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Gederholm v. Davies

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

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided October 30, 1894·No. No. 9203·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] ment, 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] ment, 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.)

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

Pincite

60 N.W. 676 (Gederholm v. Davies) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related