Middelstadt v. McIntyre

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Middelstadt v. McIntyre

56 N.W. 464, 55 Minn. 69, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 141

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 18, 1893

DocketNo. 8308

StatusPublished

This text of 56 N.W. 464 (Middelstadt v. McIntyre) 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

Middelstadt v. McIntyre, 56 N.W. 464, 55 Minn. 69, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 141 (Mich. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Vanderburgh, J.

This action was brought in Justice’s Court. A complaint in writing was filed with the Justice, and, before answering, the defendant appeared, and moved to dismiss the action, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which motion was summarily granted, and judgment was thereupon rendered for the defendant.

The gi’anting of this motion is assigned as error, on the ground that the procedure was unauthorized by the statute regulating the practice in Justice’s Court.

We think the point is well taken. The statute (1878 G. S. ch. 65, § 33) provides that “either party may object to the pleading of his adversary * * * that it contains no cause of action or defense. If the court deems the objection well founded, it shall order the pleading to be amended.” The court had no authority to order or render judgment without directing an amendment as the statute requires. The pleading was clearly bad, but it was the duty of the Justice, in his order disposing of defendant’s objection to it, to order it to be amended. This was the only course open to him under the statute, the object of which is undoubtedly to prevent the summary disposition of cases in justice’s court for defects in pleading without opportunity for amendment and a trial upon the merits. Hilliard v. Austin, 17 Barb. 141. Here the ease was within the jurisdiction of the Justice, and we should hardly be warranted in holding that the complaint could not be amended, by the addition or substitution of allegations, so as to state a cause of action. Glasse v. Keulsen, 3 Abb. Pr. 101.

(Opinion published 56 N. W. Rep. 464.)

For the error referred to, the judgment must be reversed, but no costs should be allowed in this court.

Judgment reversed, and case remanded.

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

Vanderburgh, J.

This action was brought in Justice’s Court. A complaint in writing was filed with the Justice, and, before answering, the defendant appeared, and moved to dismiss the action, on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which motion was summarily granted, and judgment was thereupon rendered for the defendant.

The gi’anting of this motion is assigned as error, on the ground that the procedure was unauthorized by the statute regulating the practice in Justice’s Court.

We think the point is well taken. The statute (1878 G. S. ch. 65, § 33) provides that “either party may object to the pleading of his adversary * * * that it contains no cause of action or defense. If the court deems the objection well founded, it shall order the pleading to be amended.” The court had no authority to order or render judgment without directing an amendment as the statute requires. The pleading was clearly bad, but it was the duty of the Justice, in his order disposing of defendant’s objection to it, to order it to be amended. This was the only course open to him under the statute, the object of which is undoubtedly to prevent the summary disposition of cases in justice’s court for defects in pleading without opportunity for amendment and a trial upon the merits. Hilliard v. Austin, 17 Barb. 141. Here the ease was within the jurisdiction of the Justice, and we should hardly be warranted in holding that the complaint could not be amended, by the addition or substitution of allegations, so as to state a cause of action. Glasse v. Keulsen, 3 Abb. Pr. 101.

(Opinion published 56 N. W. Rep. 464.)

For the error referred to, the judgment must be reversed, but no costs should be allowed in this court.

Judgment reversed, and case remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.W. 464, 55 Minn. 69, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middelstadt-v-mcintyre-minn-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack