Goldberg v. Fields, 36821
| Decision Date | 27 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 36821,36821 |
| Citation | 76 N.W.2d 668,247 Minn. 213 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | Allen GOLDBERG, Respondent, v. Lafayette FIELDS, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The remedy which is provided by the unlawful detainer statutes is a summary one, and the mode of proceeding is the essence of it.
2. The judgment in an unlawful detainer action merely determines the right to the present possession of the property.
3. The practice in municipal courts under the forcible entry and unlawful detainer statutes must conform to that prescribed for justices of the peace under M.S.A. c. 566, except as otherwise prescribed by the act itself.
4. An appeal can only be taken from the final judgment, no provision being made for appeals from orders in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, whether triable in justice or in municipal courts.
5. An appeal does not lie from an order denying a motion to vacate a judgment entered in an action in unlawful detainer.
Turner & Crane, St. Paul, for appellant.
Hoffmann, Donahue & Graff, St. Paul, for respondent.
This is an action in unlawful detainer brought in the municipal court of St. Paul, commenced August 12, 1955. Plaintiff was at the time the owner of a property known as 618 Rondo Street in the city of St. Paul. The defendant had been a tenant of the property, holding from month to month. On August 12, 1955, plaintiff served defendant with a notice to quit the premises on or before September 14, 1955.
Defendant set out an alleged assignment in writing of his leasehold rights to one George E. Butler bearing date August 1, 1955. Apparently it is defendant's contention that this assignment shields him from an action in unlawful detainer.
The matter came on for trial October 19, 1955, at 9:30 a.m. While there was an answer filed in the case, the defendant did not by his pleading contest the plaintiff's ownership of the property; the defendant's tenancy from month to month; nor the notice to vacate the premises. No affirmative defense was pleaded.
Neither defendant nor his attorney apeared at the appointed time for hearing on the day of the trial. Defendant's attorney made his appearance at 10:00 a.m., which proved to be one-half hour late. A default judgment had been taken and entered after 9:30 a.m., but before the defendant appeared. The court made and filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment. Judgment for restitution was entered the same day.
Defendant thereafter moved to vacate the judgment based upon a supporting affidavit stressing that the setting of the case for 9:30 a.m. had been inadvertently overlooked. The motion to vacate was denied and the defendant appeals from the order.
It is difficult to determine upon what alleged error this appeal is predicated. The defendant has failed to conform with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule VIII(3), 27 M.S.A. We can only suggest, as has the plaintiff in his brief, that perhaps it can be assumed that the appellant is basing his appeal on the grounds that he believes the lower court abused its discretion in failing to set aside the judgment because of the defendant's claimed mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Practically the only question presented by the plaintiff's brief seems to be whether it was necessary in an unlawful detainer action for the court to wait one-half hour before proceeding, the notices announcing the trial of the action having fixed the time for trial at 9:30 a.m. on the day set. The court might have waited a reasonable period after the time announced in the notice of the trial, but he was not required to do so. If the notice fixed 9:30 a.m., that hour, and not 10:00 a.m., was the time appointed for appearance.
1--2. The remedy which is provided by the unlawful detainer statute is a summary one, and the mode of proceeding is the essence of it. Gray v. Hurley, 28 Minn. 388, 10 N.W. 417. The judgment in such an action merely determines the right to the present possession of the property.
3. The practice in municipal courts under the forcible entry and unlawful detainer statutes must conform to that prescribed for courts of justices of the peace under M.S.A. c. 566, except as otherwise prescribed by the act itself. Lilienthal v Tordoff, 154 Minn. 225, 191 N.W. 823,194 N.W. 722. It was held by this court in Spooner v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lilyerd v. Carlson, No. C2-91-657
...the parties, University Community Properties, Inc. v. Norton, 311 Minn. 18, 21-22, 246 N.W.2d 858, 860 (1976); Goldberg v. Fields, 247 Minn. 213, 215, 76 N.W.2d 668, 669 (1956); Keller v. Henvit, 219 Minn. 580, 585, 18 N.W.2d 544, 547 (1945), the counterclaim here could have been tried to a......
-
Fritz v. Warthen
...not from an order directing entry thereof. Northwest Holding Co. v. Evanson, 265 Minn. 562, 122 N.W.2d 596 (1963); Goldberg v. Fields, 247 Minn. 213, 76 N.W.2d 668 (1956). However, because of the important questions presented by this case, we are prompted to exercise discretionary review un......
-
White Earth Housing Authority v. Schwabe, C0-85-941
...proceeding is to provide a summary proceeding to determine quickly the right to present possession of property. Goldberg v. Fields, 247 Minn. 213, 215, 76 N.W.2d 668, 669 (1956); Dahlberg v. Young, 231 Minn. 60, 68, 42 N.W.2d 570, 576 (1950). See Minn.Stat. Sec. 566.02 In University Communi......
-
JBI & Associates, Inc. v. Soltan, No. A05-1031 (MN 5/9/2006)
...and the appeal period expires ten days after entry of that judgment. Minn. Stat. § 504B.371, subd. 2 (2004); Goldberg v. Fields, 247 Minn. 213, 215-16, 76 N.W.2d 668, 670 (1956); Tonkaway Ltd. P'Ship v. McLain, 433 N.W.2d 443, 443-44 (Minn. App. 1988). The appeal period is absolute, and, un......