Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

45 Minn. 96

Woolfolk v. Bruns

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 17, 1890

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1890-12-17

Action on a promissory note of $500, brought by plaintiff, a nonresident of this state, in the district court for Clay county. On November 16, 1889, the plaintiff obtained an order allowing him to file security for costs nunc pro tunc, and for judgment against defendant unless the latter should serve an answer within 10 days after service of a copy of the order. The order was served November 19, 1889.

Relies on Foster Co v. State Johnston · Board of Commissioners v. Gorman

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Supersedeas”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-12-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1958

7 state decisions

201890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Mitchell, J.

¶1A 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.)

¶2Order affirmed.

/45/minn/96 · .json · Public domain