Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 Minn. 130

O'Brien v. Pomroy

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 19, 1875

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1875-08-19

This was an action for a wrongful taking and detention of personal property, and was commenced in a justice’s court. On the return day of the summons, January 15, 1874, the parties appeared before the justice, the plaintiff filed his complaint, and thereupon, by consent of parties, the cause was adjourned to January 23, at which time the parties again appeared, and defendants moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and for insufficiency of the complaint.

Relies on Mattice v. Litcherding

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-08-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1906

4 state decisions

101875188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cornell, J.

¶1In an action before a justice of the peace the right to plead must be exercised on the return day of the summons, or at such other time, not exceeding one week next thereafter, as may be appointed by the justice, with the consent of parties; and when, as in this case, the complaint is filed at the proper time, and defendant, omitting to plead thereto, consents to an adjournment beyond the time limited for pleading, his right to answer is gone, {Mattice v. Hitcher ding, 14 Minn. 142,) and the pleadings are closed, within the meaning of Gen. St. ch. 65, § 34. When the pleadings are thus closed the justice, on the application of plaintiff, and without the consent of defendant, has the power of granting an adjournment for a period not exceeding one week; and, if such application is supported by the required oath, to any time not exceeding thirty days, (§ 34,) and in the latter case no oath is required if defendant consents to the adjournment without it. The adjournment in this case was entirely regular. There is not such a want of evidence as warrants any interference with the judgment, by this court, on that ground.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/22/minn/130 · .json · Public domain