Village of Kasson v. Lloyd

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Village of Kasson v. Lloyd

90 N.W. 1133, 86 Minn. 286, 1902 Minn. LEXIS 501

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 23, 1902

DocketNos. 12,979-(111)

StatusPublished

This text of 90 N.W. 1133 (Village of Kasson v. Lloyd) 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

Village of Kasson v. Lloyd, 90 N.W. 1133, 86 Minn. 286, 1902 Minn. LEXIS 501 (Mich. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment upon default was entered against appellant, and she moved for an order setting it aside and for leave to answer. The motion was based upon certain affidavits to the effect that judgment was entered without her.knowledge and without notice to her, and contrary to an agreement between her agent and the respondent. The motion was based upon certain affidavits to which counter affidavits were filed. The court decided the motion adversely to appellant and based its decision upon the ground that her position as to the agreement and notice was not sustained.

It is unnecessary to discuss the affidavits. It is sufficient to say that the order was purely discretionary with the trial court, and we cannot find -that its discretion was abused in denying the motion.

Order affirmed,

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment upon default was entered against appellant, and she moved for an order setting it aside and for leave to answer. The motion was based upon certain affidavits to the effect that judgment was entered without her.knowledge and without notice to her, and contrary to an agreement between her agent and the respondent. The motion was based upon certain affidavits to which counter affidavits were filed. The court decided the motion adversely to appellant and based its decision upon the ground that her position as to the agreement and notice was not sustained.

It is unnecessary to discuss the affidavits. It is sufficient to say that the order was purely discretionary with the trial court, and we cannot find -that its discretion was abused in denying the motion.

Order affirmed,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.W. 1133, 86 Minn. 286, 1902 Minn. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/village-of-kasson-v-lloyd-minn-1902.