Stone v. Johnson

13 N.W. 920, 30 Minn. 16, 1882 Minn. LEXIS 5
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided November 17, 1882·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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] the 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

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

13 N.W. 920 (Stone v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Williams
40 N.W. 165 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1888)
King v. Kindred
37 N.W. 794 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1888)
Coolbaugh v. Roemer
21 N.W. 472 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1884)