¶1Upon the trial, when the plaintiff rested his case, the court, on motion of defendants, dismissed the action, evidently, *407as appears from the record, upon the ground that the plaintiff hadl failed to establish a cause of action. The judgment entered uporc this order was one of dismissal merely, and not upon the merits» Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 262, subd. 3. Hence, under Gen. St. 1878,. c. 67, § 2, the defendants were only entitled to five dollars statutory-costs. The-cause is therefore remanded, with directions to the court-below to modify the judgment appealed from by deducting therefrom-five dollars. It is ordered, however, that the appellant shall not. recover any costs in this court.
44 Minn. 406
Conrad v. Bauldwin
Decided October 28, 1890
Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1890-10-28
Plaintiff, holding a judgment of $161.17 against the defendant Julia S. Fernwalt, on which execution had been issued and returned unsatisfied, brought this action in the district court of Hennepin county, to reach property alleged to have been fraudulently transferred by the judgment debtor to the defendant Bauldwin. At the trial, before Hooker, J., the action was dismissed on defendants’ motion at the close of the evidence for plaintiff.
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1934
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1890-10-28
View the full empirical analysis of this case →