Woolfolk v. Bruns

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Woolfolk v. Bruns

47 N.W. 460, 45 Minn. 96, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 519

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 17, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 47 N.W. 460 (Woolfolk v. Bruns) 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

Woolfolk v. Bruns, 47 N.W. 460, 45 Minn. 96, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 519 (Mich. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

A supersedeas is a statutory remedy, and is only obtained by a strict compliance with all the required conditions, one of which, in case of an appeal from an order, is that the supersedeas bond shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the order is filed. Gen. St. 1878, c. 86, § 10. Hence, proceedings on the order are stayed, and rights under it are saved, as of the date of the filing of the bond. The supersedeas does not relate back to the date of the order, so as to annul proceedings already had, or restore rights under it already lost. The stay simply leaves the proceedings on the order, and the rights of the appellant under it, just as they are when it takes effect on the date of filing the bond. In the present case, the right of the appellant under the order to serve an amended answer had expired before the supersedeas bond was filed; and hence was not “saved” by the stay, as there was then nothing to save. See Board of Com'rs v. Gorman, 19 Wall. 661; Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201, (5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 8.)

Order affirmed.

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

Mitchell, J.

A supersedeas is a statutory remedy, and is only obtained by a strict compliance with all the required conditions, one of which, in case of an appeal from an order, is that the supersedeas bond shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the court where the order is filed. Gen. St. 1878, c. 86, § 10. Hence, proceedings on the order are stayed, and rights under it are saved, as of the date of the filing of the bond. The supersedeas does not relate back to the date of the order, so as to annul proceedings already had, or restore rights under it already lost. The stay simply leaves the proceedings on the order, and the rights of the appellant under it, just as they are when it takes effect on the date of filing the bond. In the present case, the right of the appellant under the order to serve an amended answer had expired before the supersedeas bond was filed; and hence was not “saved” by the stay, as there was then nothing to save. See Board of Com'rs v. Gorman, 19 Wall. 661; Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201, (5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 8.)

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 N.W. 460, 45 Minn. 96, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolfolk-v-bruns-minn-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack