TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reagan v. Madden

Margaret Reagan v. Walter Madden

Reagan v. Madden, 17 Minn. 402 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1871
Judges
McMillan
Citations
17 Minn. 402
Headnotes
A motion to be relieved .from a judgment made under sec, 105, ck. 66, Gen. Stat., within one year from the entry of judgment, is addressed to the discretion of the court in which the motion is made ; and, where there is no abuse of such discretion, the order granting such motion will not be reversed.
Summary
Appeal from an order of the district court for Scott county, the nature of which is .stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — McMillan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court.

McMillan, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court, setting aside a judgment entered by default, and permitting the defendant to answer, &c.

Judgment was entered for the plaintiff on the 27th of September, 1869. Notice of the motion to set aside the judgment was given on the 25th of October, 1869, and in the meantime executions had been issued and levied, and money made thereon by sale, &c. The motion was granted, and the judgment set aside, on the 13th of November, 1869.

The motion, having been made for relief from the judgment on the grounds specified in sec. 105 of ch. 66 of the Gen *403 Stat. within one year from the entry of the judgment, was addressed to the discretion of the court and will only be reversed on the ground of abuse of discretion by the court below. Myrick vs. Pierce, 5 Minn. 65 ; Jorgenson vs. Boehmer et al., 9 Minn. 181 . That, upon the facts shown upon the motion, we might have come to a conclusion different from that arrived at by the district court is not a sufficient reason for reversing the order. Without reviewing the facts it suffices to say that the case presented upon the motion-does not show that in granting the motion there was any abuse of discretion.

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1893: 12016: 118932026peak 1893 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Evans v. Fall River County55 N.W. 862 (S.D. 1893)
  2. State of Minnesota v. Douglas John Olson884 N.W.2d 395 (Minn. 2016)

Most recent

  1. State of Minnesota v. Douglas John Olson884 N.W.2d 395 (Minn. 2016)
  2. Evans v. Fall River County55 N.W. 862 (S.D. 1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Jorgensen v. Boehmer, 9 Minn. 181 (1864) 5
Myrick v. Pierce, 5 Minn. 65 (1860) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list