Hanson v. Western Surety Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Hanson v. Western Surety Co.

6 N.W.2d 43, 213 Minn. 182, 1942 Minn. LEXIS 501

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 30, 1942

DocketNo. 33,418.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 N.W.2d 43 (Hanson v. Western Surety Co.) 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

Hanson v. Western Surety Co., 6 N.W.2d 43, 213 Minn. 182, 1942 Minn. LEXIS 501 (Mich. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was originally brought in Kandiyohi county against the Western Surety Company of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, as sole defendant, summons and complaint being served upon it on the 25th of June 1912. September 16, 1912, Harvey Hageman asked to be made a defendant, and an order was made to that effect September 17, 1912. Hageman immediately made a demand for change of venue to Stearns county, the place of his residence. The clerk of district court of Kandiyohi county, where the action was commenced, refused to transfer the file, and the defendants now seek a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling him to do so.

The Western Surety Company is a foreign corporation, and the action commenced against it alone was properly laid in Kandiyohi county, where it was commenced. Change of venue as a matter of right rests entirely upon the statute. Minn. St. 1941, § 512.10 (Mason SC 1927, § 9215). That section makes the only provision for change of venue as a matter of right and applies only to actions where the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county. Such being the case, it has no application where at the time the action is commenced it is brought in the proper county, as it was here. The case is controlled by Healy v. Mathews, 108 Minn. 125, 121 N. W. 428.

Alternative writ of mandamus discharged and application for peremptory writ denied.

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

Per Curiam.

This action was originally brought in Kandiyohi county against the Western Surety Company of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, as sole defendant, summons and complaint being served upon it on the 25th of June 1912. September 16, 1912, Harvey Hageman asked to be made a defendant, and an order was made to that effect September 17, 1912. Hageman immediately made a demand for change of venue to Stearns county, the place of his residence. The clerk of district court of Kandiyohi county, where the action was commenced, refused to transfer the file, and the defendants now seek a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling him to do so.

The Western Surety Company is a foreign corporation, and the action commenced against it alone was properly laid in Kandiyohi county, where it was commenced. Change of venue as a matter of right rests entirely upon the statute. Minn. St. 1941, § 512.10 (Mason SC 1927, § 9215). That section makes the only provision for change of venue as a matter of right and applies only to actions where the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county. Such being the case, it has no application where at the time the action is commenced it is brought in the proper county, as it was here. The case is controlled by Healy v. Mathews, 108 Minn. 125, 121 N. W. 428.

Alternative writ of mandamus discharged and application for peremptory writ denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 N.W.2d 43, 213 Minn. 182, 1942 Minn. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanson-v-western-surety-co-minn-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack