Oldenberg v. Devine

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Oldenberg v. Devine

42 N.W. 88, 40 Minn. 409, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 114

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 1, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 42 N.W. 88 (Oldenberg v. Devine) 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

Oldenberg v. Devine, 42 N.W. 88, 40 Minn. 409, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 114 (Mich. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Dickinson, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the district court in a cause brought to that court by appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace. The appellant contends that the judgment of the district court should be vacated, because it was entered by the clerk without any other authority than a written stipulation of the parties, no order of the court therefor having been made; and also because the record does not show that, even under the terms of the stipulation, the judgment was authorized. The authority of the judge of the district court having never been exercised-, either in respect to the entry of the judgment nor subsequently upon motion to set it aside or to rectify it, the question here presented will not be considered upon an appeal from the judgment. Eaton v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 80, (134;) Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. 27, (60, 65;) County of Hennepin v. Jones, 18 Minn. 182, (199;) Coles v. Berryhill, 37 Minn. 56, (33 N. W. Rep. 213.) No error being shown which we can consider, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Dickinson, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the district court in a cause brought to that court by appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace. The appellant contends that the judgment of the district court should be vacated, because it was entered by the clerk without any other authority than a written stipulation of the parties, no order of the court therefor having been made; and also because the record does not show that, even under the terms of the stipulation, the judgment was authorized. The authority of the judge of the district court having never been exercised-, either in respect to the entry of the judgment nor subsequently upon motion to set it aside or to rectify it, the question here presented will not be considered upon an appeal from the judgment. Eaton v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 80, (134;) Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. 27, (60, 65;) County of Hennepin v. Jones, 18 Minn. 182, (199;) Coles v. Berryhill, 37 Minn. 56, (33 N. W. Rep. 213.) No error being shown which we can consider, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.W. 88, 40 Minn. 409, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oldenberg-v-devine-minn-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack