Ingram v. Conway

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Ingram v. Conway

30 N.W. 447, 36 Minn. 129, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 256

DecidedDecember 6, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 30 N.W. 447 (Ingram v. Conway) 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

Ingram v. Conway, 30 N.W. 447, 36 Minn. 129, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 256 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Gileillan, C. J.

It is conceded that if the judge of the seventh judicial district had authority to approve the assignee’s bond, the ease was rightly decided in the court below. Gen. St. 1878, c. 64, § 5, provides that “the ~udge of any district shall discharge the duties of [130]*130the judge of any other district when convenience or the public interest requires it.” We think such a case as this comes directly within the intent of this provision. It was made to subserve convenience. The only persons whose convenience was involved were the assignee and his sureties, who lived in the same place with the judge who approved the bond; and, to go before the judge of the eleventh judicial district, they would have been obliged to travel a great distance. The bond showed where the parties to it resided, and that was a sufficient showing that convenience justified the judge in acting.

Order affirmed.

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

Gileillan, C. J.

It is conceded that if the judge of the seventh judicial district had authority to approve the assignee’s bond, the ease was rightly decided in the court below. Gen. St. 1878, c. 64, § 5, provides that “the ~udge of any district shall discharge the duties of [130]*130the judge of any other district when convenience or the public interest requires it.” We think such a case as this comes directly within the intent of this provision. It was made to subserve convenience. The only persons whose convenience was involved were the assignee and his sureties, who lived in the same place with the judge who approved the bond; and, to go before the judge of the eleventh judicial district, they would have been obliged to travel a great distance. The bond showed where the parties to it resided, and that was a sufficient showing that convenience justified the judge in acting.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 N.W. 447, 36 Minn. 129, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-conway-minn-1886.