State ex rel. Truhn v. Baxter

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State ex rel. Truhn v. Baxter

36 N.W. 108, 38 Minn. 137, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 339

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 27, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 36 N.W. 108 (State ex rel. Truhn v. Baxter) 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. Truhn v. Baxter, 36 N.W. 108, 38 Minn. 137, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 339 (Mich. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

This is an application for a writ of mandamus requiring the settlement and allowance of a ease in the district court. A proposed case was served by the relator (the defendant in the action) upon the attorneys for the adverse party, (the plaintiff,) after the expiration of the time allowed by statute therefor. The plaintiff’s attorneys, however, received and admitted “due service” of the same. As, under the statute, the plaintiff’s attorneys might have extended the time for the service of a proposed case by a stipulation, so they might waive the objection that it was not served in time. This they did do in the manner above indicated. Therefore the proposed case should be settled, and, when settled, allowed.

Let the writ issue as prayed.

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

By the Court.

This is an application for a writ of mandamus requiring the settlement and allowance of a ease in the district court. A proposed case was served by the relator (the defendant in the action) upon the attorneys for the adverse party, (the plaintiff,) after the expiration of the time allowed by statute therefor. The plaintiff’s attorneys, however, received and admitted “due service” of the same. As, under the statute, the plaintiff’s attorneys might have extended the time for the service of a proposed case by a stipulation, so they might waive the objection that it was not served in time. This they did do in the manner above indicated. Therefore the proposed case should be settled, and, when settled, allowed.

Let the writ issue as prayed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 N.W. 108, 38 Minn. 137, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-truhn-v-baxter-minn-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack