Grant v. Schmidt

• Citation: 22 Minn. 1
• Parties: WILLIAM L. GRANT & another <I>vs.</I> GEORGE SCHMIDT & another.
• Decision Date: 17 May 1875
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 1

22 Minn. 1

WILLIAM L. GRANT & another vs. GEORGE SCHMIDT & another.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 17, 1875.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Scott county, Chatfield, J., presiding, setting aside a judgment.

L. M. & D. A. Brown, for appellants.

Macdonald & Southworth, for respondents.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

The plaintiffs, each of whom owns a separate tract of land bordering upon a natural lake, brought suit against defendants, alleging in the complaint that they have obstructed the natural outlet of the lake, raising the water above its natural level, and causing it to overflow the land of each of the plaintiffs, and so causing damage to the land of each. The complaint asks for an abatement of the nuisance, a perpetual injunction against renewing the obstructions, and for damages to each of the plaintiffs for the injury done by the overflow to his or her land.

After the suit was commenced, terms of settlement were agreed upon, and a written stipulation, expressing the terms of settlement — among others, that defendants should pay the costs, and that the suit should be dismissed — and which it was intended should be signed by all parties, was drawn up, signed by each of the plaintiffs and by the defendant, George Schmidt, and by some person filed with the clerk of the court. George Schmidt paid the costs, John Schmidt refused to sign the stipulation, and both defendants refused to abide by the settlement. Thereupon the plaintiffs, without notice, applied to the court for judgment, which ordered judgment accordingly. The damages were assessed by a referee appointed for that purpose, and judgment entered for the injunction, for the abatement of the nuisance, and in favor of the plaintiff, Grant, for $62.00 damages, in favor of Peter Delbo for $78.00 damages, and in favor of Mary Delbo for $146.00 damages.

The defendants moved for an order setting aside the judgment, and for such other or further order as to the court might seem just and proper in the premises, which motion was based on the stipulation filed and the allegation that the defendants had strictly complied with it, and "because said judgment is irregular, unauthorized, and rendered without jurisdiction, and void." The court set aside the judgment, and from the order setting it aside an appeal is brought to this court.

The motion was not addressed to the discretion of the court, for the moving papers presented no facts to bring its discretion into exercise. It could not be sustained by the stipulation and the allegation that the defendants had complied with its terms, for the affidavits in opposition to the motion show beyond any doubt that the stipulation is incomplete for want of the signature of John Schmidt, and that, although defendants paid the costs, they refused to abide by the really essential terms in the stipulation.

The court had jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter, and the judgment was not void. The only other ground for the motion is that the judgment was irregular or unauthorized. It was not irregular because entered without notice, for the stipulation was not such an appearance (and there was no other) as entitled the defendants to notice of subsequent proceedings. For such purpose the appearance must be by answering, demurring, or by written notice of appearance.

Was the judgment unauthorized — that is, such a judgment as the plaintiffs were not entitled to have entered?

So far as the relief claimed in the complaint related to the abatement of the nuisance and to the injunction, the suit was...