Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Minn. 320

Westervelt v. King

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 15, 1860

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1860-07-15

<p>An order, “upon a summary application in an action after judgment,” to fall within the sense o! Subdivision Six, of Section Twelve, page 621-2 Stat. 'of Minn., must be one which is made in some proceeding which recognizes the judgment, and is predicated upon its existence, and not an order in a proceeding which is aimed to set it aside.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1892

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Elandrau, J.

¶1By the Court The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case is well made. The order below opening the judgment decided simply a question of practice as to the service of the answer. It in no way “ involved the merits of the action.” Nor can it be said to be “ a summary application in an action after judgment,” in the sense of subdivision six, of section twelve, {marginal), on pages 621-2, of the New Statutes. An order to fall within that subdivision must be one which is made in some proceeding which recognizes the judgment, and is predicated upon the existence of it, and not an order in a proceeding which is aimed to set it aside. The order for these reasons is clearly not appealable. See 3 How. P. R. 357, 425,; 10 How. Pr. R. 89; 3 Code Rep. 141.

¶2The appeal is dismissed.

/4/minn/320 · .json · Public domain