TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Billson v. Lardner

WILLIAM W. BILLSON v. WILLIAM P. LARDNER and Other

Billson v. Lardner, 69 N.W. 477 (Minn. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 24, 1896
Docket
No. 10,388—(107)
Judges
Buck
Citations
69 N.W. 47767 Minn. 351896 Minn. LEXIS 336
Disposition
Beversed.
Headnotes
Wolf v. McKinley, 65 Minn. 156, followed. Tie case of Wolf v. McKinley, 65 Minn. 156, followed. Lien — Dissolution by Assignment — Appeal. Tbe trial court made findings of fact and an order thereon, and subsequently, by agreement of the respective parties, it made additional findings and an order thereon, and filed the same. Held, that the last order must be deemed the final one in force, and that an appeal might be taken therefrom within 30 days after written notice of the same.
Summary
Appeal by plaintiff and by defendant William P. Lardner, assignee, from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Morris, J., made February 21, and filed February 26, 1896, ordering plaintiff to pay to defendants Joseph Wolf and others, copartners as Wolf Brothers’ Bank, the sum of $3,516.61.

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

Opinion of the Court — Buck

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

BUCK, J.

Upon the merits this case is controlled by that of Wolf v. McKinley, 65 Minn. 156 , 68 N. W. 3 .

Upon the question of. practice it appears that the trial court made its findings of fact and the order thereon on February 6, 1896, and filed the same February 7, 1896. Subsequently, pursuant to an agreement made between the respective attorneys, amended findings and an order thereon were made by the trial court, and substituted for the original findings, the order bearing date February 21, 1896, and filed February 26,1896. There was some controversy as to the extent and materiality of the additional findings, but, so long as they stood as the completed findings and final order of the court upon the merits, .they must be deemed as the only ones legally in force. The last findings had attached an order for 20 days’ stay. The appeal, therefore, could be taken from the order dated February 21,' 1896, within 30 days after written notice of the same.

*36 As the order made herein by the trial court is in conflict with the decision of this court made in the case of Wolf v. McKinley, it is hereby reversed, and the case remanded to the district court of St. Louis county, and said court'directed to amend its conclusions of law, and cause an order to be entered therein awarding to the defendant William P. Lardner, as assignee of William McKinley, insolvent, the funds in controversy.

How later courts describe this case

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

1932: 11936: 11976: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. E.C.I. Corp. v. G.G.C. Co.237 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 1976)
  2. Obradovich v. Walker Bros. Bankers16 P.2d 212 (Utah 1932)
  3. Zimmern v. United States80 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1936)

Most recent

  1. E.C.I. Corp. v. G.G.C. Co.237 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. 1976)
  2. Zimmern v. United States80 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1936)
  3. Obradovich v. Walker Bros. Bankers16 P.2d 212 (Utah 1932)

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
Wolf v. McKinley, 68 N.W. 2 (Minn. 1896) 8

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