Graham v. Conrad

69 N.W. 215, 66 Minn. 470, 1896 Minn. LEXIS 471
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided December 17, 1896·No. Nos. 10,326-(178)·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appealed from an order of the district court directing the dismissal of an appeal from a justice’s court and affirming a judgment rendered therein. It was held in Ross v. Evans, 30 Minn. 206, 14 N. W. 897, that an order dismissing an appeal from a justice’s court for want of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the return was within the terms of G. S. 1894, § 6140, subd. 5, and appealable. But by Laws 1895, c. 24, it was enacted that in all cases where an appeal from a justice’s court shall for any cause be dismissed in district court, such court shall enter judgment in the action, affirming the judgment of the justice, with all costs. The passage of this act changed the rule in reference to an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing an appeal from a justice’s court, because the reason for the rule as stated in the Boss Case no longer exists. Such appeal must now be taken, if at all, from the judgment entered in district court. Appeal dismissed.

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

Graham v. Conrad, 69 N.W. 215, 66 Minn. 470, 1896 Minn. LEXIS 471 (Mich. 1896).

69 N.W. 215 (Graham v. Conrad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Estate of Ploetz
243 N.W. 383 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1932)
Hershman v. Razkin
209 N.W. 488 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1926)
Thompson v. Berg
187 N.W. 703 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1922)
Thompson v. Johnberg
152 Minn. 538 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1922)
Holmes v. Igo
124 N.W. 974 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1910)
State ex rel. Hall v. Long
114 N.W. 248 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1907)
Taylor v. Red Lake Falls Lumber Co.
84 N.W. 301 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)