Knoblauch v. Baer

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Knoblauch v. Baer

112 N.W. 1141, 102 Minn. 506, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 482

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 5, 1907

DocketNos. 15,119—(65)

StatusPublished

This text of 112 N.W. 1141 (Knoblauch v. Baer) 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

Knoblauch v. Baer, 112 N.W. 1141, 102 Minn. 506, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 482 (Mich. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In an action on a promissory note the defendant interposed an answer, but failed to appear at the trial, and a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant moved to set aside the judgment entered thereon, on the ground that the judgment was secured “without proper notification of the attorneys for the defendant, and through their inadvertence and neglect in not appearing at the general term of said court, when said case was continued, believing and assuming that the attorneys for the plaintiff in said action would extend to the attorneys for the defendant the courtesy of notifying them as to when the case would be set for trial.” The trial court denied the motion, and in so doing was acting clearly within its discretionary powers.

Order affirmed.

JAGGARD, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

In an action on a promissory note the defendant interposed an answer, but failed to appear at the trial, and a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant moved to set aside the judgment entered thereon, on the ground that the judgment was secured “without proper notification of the attorneys for the defendant, and through their inadvertence and neglect in not appearing at the general term of said court, when said case was continued, believing and assuming that the attorneys for the plaintiff in said action would extend to the attorneys for the defendant the courtesy of notifying them as to when the case would be set for trial.” The trial court denied the motion, and in so doing was acting clearly within its discretionary powers.

Order affirmed.

JAGGARD, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 N.W. 1141, 102 Minn. 506, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knoblauch-v-baer-minn-1907.