State ex rel. Rees v. Schultz
This text of 154 N.W. 659 (State ex rel. Rees v. Schultz) 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.
Opinion
Proceeding against May Schultz, and others, under the provisions of Laws 1913, p. 815, c. 562, to abate a nuisance. The summons, complaint, an order to show cause why a temporary injunction should not be issued and a restraining order were served on appellant personally April 20, 1915. She failed to appear or answer.
The cause was brought on for trial June 18, 1915. Findings were made and filed June 28, 1915, and judgment entered and docketed June 29, 1915. A writ of execution was issued and a levy made.
[489]*489July 9, 1915, May Schultz, upon a proposed answer and affidavits, and upon all the records, files and proceedings in the case, moved to vacate the judgment and for leave to answer. The matter was heard on July 14, 1915, and resulted in an order denying the motion, from which order she appeals.
The motion was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. We hold that, on the facts presented by the record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the order appealed from.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
154 N.W. 659, 131 Minn. 488, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-rees-v-schultz-minn-1915.