State ex rel. Matson v. Powers

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State ex rel. Matson v. Powers

113 N.W. 1135, 102 Minn. 509, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 487

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 11, 1907

DocketNos. 15,370—(16).2

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.W. 1135 (State ex rel. Matson v. Powers) 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. Matson v. Powers, 113 N.W. 1135, 102 Minn. 509, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 487 (Mich. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter was heard upon, an order, issued on the petition of the relator,, requiring the respondent to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue' requiring him, as judge of the district court of the Twelfth judicial district, to settle and sign a case and exceptions in this action. It is-admitted that the time limited by the statute for the settlement of a case and exceptions had expired before the relator made a motion béfore the respondent, as such judge, to be relieved of the default and to have the proposed case-settled and signed. The motion was denied, but afterward renewed and again denied.

The granting or refusing of such a motion is within the discretion of the trial court, and nothing but a clear abuse of such discretion will justify the interference of this court. State v. Powers, 69 Minn. 429, 72 N. W. 705. Having-heard counsel for the respective parties and examined the record herein, we are of the opinion that the learned trial judge did not abuse his discretion in-denying the motion. Therefore it is ordered that the order to show cause be,, and it is, hereby discharged.

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

PER CURIAM.

This matter was heard upon, an order, issued on the petition of the relator,, requiring the respondent to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandamus should not issue' requiring him, as judge of the district court of the Twelfth judicial district, to settle and sign a case and exceptions in this action. It is-admitted that the time limited by the statute for the settlement of a case and exceptions had expired before the relator made a motion béfore the respondent, as such judge, to be relieved of the default and to have the proposed case-settled and signed. The motion was denied, but afterward renewed and again denied.

The granting or refusing of such a motion is within the discretion of the trial court, and nothing but a clear abuse of such discretion will justify the interference of this court. State v. Powers, 69 Minn. 429, 72 N. W. 705. Having-heard counsel for the respective parties and examined the record herein, we are of the opinion that the learned trial judge did not abuse his discretion in-denying the motion. Therefore it is ordered that the order to show cause be,, and it is, hereby discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.W. 1135, 102 Minn. 509, 1907 Minn. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-matson-v-powers-minn-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack