Johnson v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Johnson v. Johnson

58 N.W. 824, 57 Minn. 100, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 230

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided April 20, 1894·No. No. 8684·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

The defendant’s first assignment of error, to wit, that the Municipal Court of St Paul “erred in assuming jurisdiction to try and determine the action,” not being discussed or referred to in the points or argument, must be deemed to have been abandoned.

The judgment of the District Court of Ramsey county, in this state, in the former action between the same parties, was conclusive between them upon all issues, whether principal or subordinate, which were actually tried and directly passed upon, and was not subject to collateral attack, and was decisive, adversely to defendant, of every material issue in the present action, unless it was as to defendant’s nonpayment of rent But an examination of the record satisfies us that the trial proceeded throughout upon the theory that there was no such issue in the case, and that the point was [104] never once suggested or called to the attention of the court on the trial. There are no merits in the appeal.

Judgment affirmed, and cause remanded, with directions to the court below to enforce the judgment.

(Opinion published 58 N. W, 824.)

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

Mitchell, J.

The defendant’s first assignment of error, to wit, that the Municipal Court of St Paul “erred in assuming jurisdiction to try and determine the action,” not being discussed or referred to in the points or argument, must be deemed to have been abandoned.

The judgment of the District Court of Ramsey county, in this state, in the former action between the same parties, was conclusive between them upon all issues, whether principal or subordinate, which were actually tried and directly passed upon, and was not subject to collateral attack, and was decisive, adversely to defendant, of every material issue in the present action, unless it was as to defendant’s nonpayment of rent But an examination of the record satisfies us that the trial proceeded throughout upon the theory that there was no such issue in the case, and that the point was [104] never once suggested or called to the attention of the court on the trial. There are no merits in the appeal.

Judgment affirmed, and cause remanded, with directions to the court below to enforce the judgment.

(Opinion published 58 N. W, 824.)

Johnson v. Johnson, 58 N.W. 824, 57 Minn. 100, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 230 (Mich. 1894).

Pincite

58 N.W. 824 (Johnson v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related