Stone v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Stone v. Johnson

13 N.W. 920, 30 Minn. 16, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 5

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedNovember 17, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 13 N.W. 920 (Stone v. Johnson) 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

Stone v. Johnson, 13 N.W. 920, 30 Minn. 16, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 5 (Mich. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Yanderburgh, J.

The defendants appeal from the judgment in this case. The record contains the judgment-roll, with the findings of fact and law of the district court. But there is no statement of [18]*18the case or bill of exceptions. The sole ground of- error urged by appellants in argument before this court is the rejection of certain evidence on the trial. The judge, in his decision, sets forth the evidence in question, and his rulings thereon and defendants’ exception. It is insisted by the respondent that the exception is not properly before us, and that it cannot be considered on this appeal. In this he is correct. Such exceptions can only be brought before this court for review upon a case or bill of exceptions. Bazille v. Ullman, 2 Minn. 110, (134;) Teller v. Bishop, 8 Minn. 195, (226;) Dartnell v. Davidson, 16 Minn. 477, (530;) Stewart v. Cooley, 23 Minn. 347.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Yanderburgh, J.

The defendants appeal from the judgment in this case. The record contains the judgment-roll, with the findings of fact and law of the district court. But there is no statement of [18]*18the case or bill of exceptions. The sole ground of- error urged by appellants in argument before this court is the rejection of certain evidence on the trial. The judge, in his decision, sets forth the evidence in question, and his rulings thereon and defendants’ exception. It is insisted by the respondent that the exception is not properly before us, and that it cannot be considered on this appeal. In this he is correct. Such exceptions can only be brought before this court for review upon a case or bill of exceptions. Bazille v. Ullman, 2 Minn. 110, (134;) Teller v. Bishop, 8 Minn. 195, (226;) Dartnell v. Davidson, 16 Minn. 477, (530;) Stewart v. Cooley, 23 Minn. 347.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.W. 920, 30 Minn. 16, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-johnson-minn-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack