TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tuttle v. Wilson

Nathan P. Tuttle v. Joseph P. Wilson, impleaded, etc.

Tuttle v. Wilson, 44 N.W. 10 (Minn. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 26, 1889
Judges
Dickinson
Citations
44 N.W. 1042 Minn. 2331889 Minn. LEXIS 241
Headnotes
Stipulation to Furnish. Copy of Account — Breach — Evidence. — The parties to an action having stipulated that a copy of the items of an account, pleaded generally in the defendant’s answer, should be given to the plaintiff within a stated time, held, that the stipulation dispensed with the necessity for a demand, and that, upon default to furnish'the account as stipulated, the defendant was subject to the statutory consequence, and “precluded from giving evidence thereof.”
Summary
Appeal by defendant Wilson from an order of the district court for Clay county, refusing a. new trial after a trial before Mills, J., and judgment for $4,092 ordered for plaintiff.

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

Opinion of the Court — Dickinson

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

Dickinson, J.

The defendant having in his answer pleaded, as a counterclaim, an indebtedness due him from one Richards, and which, as was decided on a former appeal in this action, ( 33 Minn. 422 ; 26 N. W. Rep. 864 ,) the defendant was entitled to avail himself of in this action, a written stipulation was entered into by the attorneys for the respective parties, to the effect that the defendant should, within 30 days from the making of the stipulation, furnish to the plaintiff’s attorney a copy of the items constituting such counterclaim. When the cause came on for trial, more than four months after the making of the stipulation, the items of the account had not been furnished, and for this reason the court sustained the plaintiff’s objection to the receiving of proof of such account. The ruling of the court was right. By the statute, (Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 105,) while it is not necessary to plead the items of an account, the party seeking to avail himself of a matter of account is required, within 10 days after demand, to deliver to the adverse party a verified copy of it, “or be precluded from giving evidence thereof.” The stipulation dispensed with the necessity for a demand, and made absolute the duty of delivering the copy of the account referred to in the answer *234 within the stipulated time'. This not having been done, the defendant, not being relieved from his default by order of the court for cause shown, was properly subject to the consequences prescribed in the statute for such default.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1897: 11927: 118972026peak 1897 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Anderson v. M. Burg & Sons, Inc.212 N.W. 9 (Minn. 1927)
  2. Jones v. Northern Trust Co.69 N.W. 1108 (Minn. 1897)

Most recent

  1. Anderson v. M. Burg & Sons, Inc.212 N.W. 9 (Minn. 1927)
  2. Jones v. Northern Trust Co.69 N.W. 1108 (Minn. 1897)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Tuttle v. Wilson, 23 N.W. 864 (Minn. 1885) 5

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