Hunt v. Meeker County Abstract & Loan Co.

152 N.W. 866, 130 Minn. 530, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 615
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided June 11, 1915·No. No. 18,945·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court reversed the judgment of the trial court in the above entitled cause and the remittitur was transmitted to and filed in that court. Plaintiff now applies to this court to direct the trial court to make new and amended findings of fact and render judgment in his favor without a new trial. This application must be denied for the reason that, when the remittitur was filed in the lower court, the jurisdiction of this court over the cause came to an end. Rud v. Board of Co. Commrs. of Pope County, 66 Minn. 358, 68 N. W. 1062, 69 N. W. 886. It appears from the moving papers that the trial court refused to make new and amended findings of fact upon an ex parte application of plaintiff made after the cause had been remanded. The learned trial judge ruled correctly. Lawton v. Fiske, 129 Minn. 380, 152 N. W. 774.

Application denied.

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

Hunt v. Meeker County Abstract & Loan Co., 152 N.W. 866, 130 Minn. 530, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 615 (Mich. 1915).

152 N.W. 866 (Hunt v. Meeker County Abstract & Loan Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thompson v. Brunson
321 S.E.2d 622 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1984)
State v. Waddell
254 N.W. 627 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1934)
Farmers Merchants State Bank of Hawley v. Mellum
219 N.W. 179 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1928)
Nason v. Barrett
169 N.W. 804 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1918)