Lamberton v. Raymond
This text of 22 Minn. 129 (Lamberton v. Raymond) 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.
Opinion
Admitting that the justice had no power to' allow the amendment, (concerning which no opinion is necessary,) and that all proceedings had before him, after the filing of the original complaint, and before its amendment, [130]*130were corctm non judice, the subsequent proceedings and conduct of the parties remove all questions of a jurisdictional character. The subject-matter of the action, both as respects its nature and the amount claimed, as disclosed by the amended complaint, was clearly within the jurisdictional limits of the justice. Both parties thereafter, without objection, litigated it before the court by the introduction of testimony on each side, and the submission of the same upon argument to the jury. This was equivalent to the institution and litigation of an action over which the justice had undoubted jurisdiction by the voluntary appearance and argument of the parties.
The order of the district court should be reversed, and the judgment of the justice affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
22 Minn. 129, 1875 Minn. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamberton-v-raymond-minn-1875.