¶1Defendant appealed from an order of the district court directing the dismissal of an appeal from a justice’s court and affirming a judgment rendered therein. It was held in Ross v. Evans, 30 Minn. 206, 14 N. W. 897, that an order dismissing an appeal from a justice’s court for want of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the return was within the terms of G. S. 1894, § 6140, subd. 5, and appealable. But by Laws 1895, c. 24, it was enacted that in all cases where an appeal from a justice’s court shall for any cause be dismissed in district court, such court shall enter judgment in the action, affirming the judgment of the justice, with all costs. The passage of this act changed the rule in reference to an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing an appeal from a justice’s court, because the reason for the rule as stated in the Boss Case no longer exists. Such appeal must now be taken, if at all, from the judgment entered in district court. Appeal dismissed.
66 Minn. 470
Graham v. Conrad
Decided December 17, 1896
Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1896-12-17
<p>Appeal from Justice — Dismissal—Judgment—Laws 1895, e. 24.</p> <p>Since the enactment of Laws 1895, c. 24, which provides that where an appeal from a justice’s court shall for any cause be dismissed in district court, such court shall enter judgment in the action affirming the judgment of the* justice, with all costs, no appeal will lie from the order of dismissal, but must be taken, if at all, from the judgment entered in district court.</p>
Relies on Ross v. Evans
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Dismissed · Decided 1896-12-17
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1932
6 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 →