Althen v. Tarbox

Decided January 6, 1892

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1892-01-06

Appeal by defendants Eve Tarbox and J. B. Tarbox from an order of the district court of Ramsey county, Cornish, J., made January 20, 1891, refusing a new trial. Defendant Eve Tarbox was the wife of J. B. Tarbox, and owned an undivided one-third interest in a lot in Florence addition to St. Paul. On April 2, 1890, she made a contract in writing under seal with Peter Olson, whereby she agreed to sell and convey the lot to him, and he agreed to build a house on it.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-01-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1951

3 state decisions

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 →

Per Curiam,

¶1(the Chiee Justice taking no part.) Plaintiff herein sought to establish and enforce a mechanic’s lien. By their answer defendants asserted the invalidity of the alleged lien, demanded that it be declared void, and that the same be canceled. On the trial the court dismissed the action upon plaintiff’s application. Treating *3the order of dismissal as effectual, defendants moved for a new trial, and from an order denying the motion they appeal.. The right to dismiss upon the trial was clearly within the discretion of the court, and the record fails to show that there was any abuse of this discretion.

¶2Order affirmed.

¶3(Opinion published 50 N. W. Rep. 828.)