Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 Minn. 273

Mies v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 11, 1893

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1893-05-11

Appeal by defendant, Walter M. Thompson, from an order of the Municipal Court of the City of Duluth, Eric L. Winje, Special Judge, made July 27, 1892, denying his application to vacate the judgment and allow him to answer. The plaintiff, William Mies, a tailor, made an overcoat for defendant, and brought this action to recover the agreed price, $30. Defendant did not appear or answer, and on July 11,1892, judgment was entered against him for that amount and costs.

Decided 1893-05-11

Gilfillan, C. J.

¶1After the time for answering in the court below expired, upon an affidavit by the plaintiff’s attorney that no answer or demurrer had been received, nor appearance in any manner made by defendant, judgment for plaintiff was duly entered by default. Twelve days after, defendant made an application to have the judgment vacated, and for leave to answer, on an affidavit by his attorney that, before the time to answer expired, he served an answ’er, “between the hours of í P. M. and 6 P. M., by leaving the same in the office of attorney for the plaintiff, in a conspicuous place, the attorney being absent therefrom, and this deponent not knowing the residence of said attorney.” The court below denied the motion. The affidavit was not sufficient; for serving by leaving *274in a conspicuous place in the attorney’s office, in his absence, can be made only when he has no clerk therein, and there is no person in charge thereof. 1878 G. S. ch. 66, § 74. And, notwithstanding anything in the affidavit, there may at the time have been in the office a clerk of the attorney, or person having charge thereof, with whom the answer ought to have been left.

¶2Order affirmed.

Vanderburgh, J., took no part in this decision.

¶3(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 44.)

/53/minn/273 · .json · Public domain