Weller v. Hammer

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Weller v. Hammer

45 N.W. 427, 43 Minn. 195, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 154

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 25, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 45 N.W. 427 (Weller v. Hammer) 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

Weller v. Hammer, 45 N.W. 427, 43 Minn. 195, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 154 (Mich. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Vanderburgh, J.

The defendant, after the plaintiff had taken judgment as upon default, moved the court to set aside the judgment, [196]*196upon affidavits showing that the plaintiff had agreed to extend the time for answering, and that an answer had been served in time. This motion was denied, it appearing, among other things, that there was no written stipulation, and no legal service of an answer. The present motion was made to set aside the judgment, and for leave to-answer, upon substantially the same facts, except that the affidavit, shows that defendant’s counsel “understood” plaintiff’s attorney to-grant such further time to answer. This motion was also denied.

1. Upon the record, there^, was no abuse of discretion in refusing, the relief asked.

2. The defendant should have asked the additional relief on the-first motion, or obtained leave to renew the motion, no new facts having arisen.

Order affirmed.

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

Vanderburgh, J.

The defendant, after the plaintiff had taken judgment as upon default, moved the court to set aside the judgment, [196]*196upon affidavits showing that the plaintiff had agreed to extend the time for answering, and that an answer had been served in time. This motion was denied, it appearing, among other things, that there was no written stipulation, and no legal service of an answer. The present motion was made to set aside the judgment, and for leave to-answer, upon substantially the same facts, except that the affidavit, shows that defendant’s counsel “understood” plaintiff’s attorney to-grant such further time to answer. This motion was also denied.

1. Upon the record, there^, was no abuse of discretion in refusing, the relief asked.

2. The defendant should have asked the additional relief on the-first motion, or obtained leave to renew the motion, no new facts having arisen.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 N.W. 427, 43 Minn. 195, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weller-v-hammer-minn-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack