Neumann v. Edwards

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Neumann v. Edwards

178 N.W. 589, 146 Minn. 179, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 582

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 18, 1920

DocketNo. 21,924

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 178 N.W. 589 (Neumann v. Edwards) 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

Neumann v. Edwards, 178 N.W. 589, 146 Minn. 179, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 582 (Mich. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Brown, C. J.

The license of relator as an insurance agent, duly issued to him under the laws of the state, was, on March 8, 1920, under the authority conferred by chapter 195, § 6, p. 262, Laws 1915, duly revoked by the state insurance commissioner for the misconduct of relator in the exercise of rights conferred by the license. He appealed from the order of removal to the district court, as allowed and permitted by section 13 of that statute. After hearing and trial in the district court the action of the commissioner was in all things sustained and judgment, based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law, was formally entered to that effect on April 13, 1920. Thereupon relator sued out a writ of certiorari to review the same in this court.

The writ and proceedings in this court must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is well settled by our decisions that in special administrative or other nonjudicial proceedings reaching the district court by statutory appeal or otherwise, the final order or judgment of that court may be removed to the supreme court on appeal as in ordinary civil actions. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 294; County of Ramsey v. Stees, 27 Minn. 14, 6 N. W. 401; Witt v. St. Paul & N. P. R. Co. 35 Minn. 404, 29 N. W. 161, overruling Conter v. St. Paul & Sioux City R. Co. 24 Minn. 313; Moede v. County of Stearns, 43 Minn. 312, 45 N. W. 435; Koochiching County v. Franson, 91 Minn. 404, 98 N. W. 98. It is also well settled that when in any particular case an appeal is given by law, that is the exclusive remedy and certiorari will not lie, 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 1395; State v. District Court of St. Louis County, 136 Minn. 461, 161 N. W. 1055. And although the evidence returned to this court sustains the decision below, we discharge the writ and dismiss the proceedings as without jurisdiction; which cannot be conferred by the consent of the parties. 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 9071; State v. Bashko, 127 Minn. 519, 148 N. W. 1082.

Writ discharged.

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

Brown, C. J.

The license of relator as an insurance agent, duly issued to him under the laws of the state, was, on March 8, 1920, under the authority conferred by chapter 195, § 6, p. 262, Laws 1915, duly revoked by the state insurance commissioner for the misconduct of relator in the exercise of rights conferred by the license. He appealed from the order of removal to the district court, as allowed and permitted by section 13 of that statute. After hearing and trial in the district court the action of the commissioner was in all things sustained and judgment, based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law, was formally entered to that effect on April 13, 1920. Thereupon relator sued out a writ of certiorari to review the same in this court.

The writ and proceedings in this court must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is well settled by our decisions that in special administrative or other nonjudicial proceedings reaching the district court by statutory appeal or otherwise, the final order or judgment of that court may be removed to the supreme court on appeal as in ordinary civil actions. 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 294; County of Ramsey v. Stees, 27 Minn. 14, 6 N. W. 401; Witt v. St. Paul & N. P. R. Co. 35 Minn. 404, 29 N. W. 161, overruling Conter v. St. Paul & Sioux City R. Co. 24 Minn. 313; Moede v. County of Stearns, 43 Minn. 312, 45 N. W. 435; Koochiching County v. Franson, 91 Minn. 404, 98 N. W. 98. It is also well settled that when in any particular case an appeal is given by law, that is the exclusive remedy and certiorari will not lie, 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 1395; State v. District Court of St. Louis County, 136 Minn. 461, 161 N. W. 1055. And although the evidence returned to this court sustains the decision below, we discharge the writ and dismiss the proceedings as without jurisdiction; which cannot be conferred by the consent of the parties. 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. § 9071; State v. Bashko, 127 Minn. 519, 148 N. W. 1082.

Writ discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 N.W. 589, 146 Minn. 179, 1920 Minn. LEXIS 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neumann-v-edwards-minn-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack