State ex rel. Felton v. Stolberg

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State ex rel. Felton v. Stolberg

150 N.W. 924, 128 Minn. 537, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 990

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedFebruary 8, 1915

DocketNo. 19,237

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 N.W. 924 (State ex rel. Felton v. Stolberg) 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

State ex rel. Felton v. Stolberg, 150 N.W. 924, 128 Minn. 537, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 990 (Mich. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a mandamus proceeding to compel the respondent district court to ■“settle” a ease. The motion to settle the case was made long after the statutory time had expired and after the expiration of all stipulations and orders extending the time. Some matters in excuse were set forth by appellant, but these were addressed to the discretion of the trial court. There was no fact which was conclusive upon the parties or the court. Respondent - retained the proposed case, hut this was not a waiver of the objection that it was not served in time. State v. Powers, 69 Minn. 429, 432, 72 N. W. 705. The granting or refusing of a motion for leave to settle a case after the time limited by the statute, rests largely in the trial court’s discretion, and only in a case of clear abuse of such discretion wil-1 this court interfere. State v. Powers, supra. We cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in- this case.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a mandamus proceeding to compel the respondent district court to ■“settle” a ease. The motion to settle the case was made long after the statutory time had expired and after the expiration of all stipulations and orders extending the time. Some matters in excuse were set forth by appellant, but these were addressed to the discretion of the trial court. There was no fact which was conclusive upon the parties or the court. Respondent - retained the proposed case, hut this was not a waiver of the objection that it was not served in time. State v. Powers, 69 Minn. 429, 432, 72 N. W. 705. The granting or refusing of a motion for leave to settle a case after the time limited by the statute, rests largely in the trial court’s discretion, and only in a case of clear abuse of such discretion wil-1 this court interfere. State v. Powers, supra. We cannot hold that the trial court abused its discretion in- this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 N.W. 924, 128 Minn. 537, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-felton-v-stolberg-minn-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack