Herrick v. Butler
| Decision Date | 11 January 1883 |
| Citation | 14 N.W. 794,30 Minn. 156 |
| Parties | Warren T. Herrick v. William Butler, impleaded, etc |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action to quiet title, brought in the district court for Morrison county. Defendant Butler answered and the action was referred to a referee for trial. Subsequently the parties entered into a stipulation dismissing the action, which was in the following words: "It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the parties to the above-entitled action, that the same be and hereby is dismissed, the defendants to neither receive or pay the costs or disbursements therein that judgment may be entered in said action in accordance with this stipulation, without further notice to or by either party." Upon this stipulation the referee made an order dismissing the action. Defendant having taxed costs and caused judgment to be entered in his favor without notice plaintiff moved that the judgment be set aside and vacated because of the costs included in it, and because of the defects in the judgment-roll, and appeals from an order by McKelvy, J., setting aside the judgment and allowing a retaxation of the costs, upon notice, but denying all further relief.
Savage & Woodman, for appellant.
Taylor & Taylor, for respondent.
Judgment dismissing the action and for costs against the plaintiff, taxed without notice, was entered August 31, 1880. Plaintiff afterwards moved the court to set aside the judgment for irregularity, on the ground of defects in the record and judgment-roll, and because costs were irregularly taxed. The court, however, had jurisdiction, and the action appears to have been dismissed upon the trial by the referee, in pursuance of a stipulation of the parties. This stipulation was, however, for judgment of dismissal without costs and without notice. The court granted plaintiff's motion in so far as to vacate the taxation and allowance of costs in the judgment, but denying further relief, with leave, however, to defendant to retax costs upon notice. Plaintiff thereupon appealed from that portion of the order refusing to set aside the judgment, and granting leave to readjust the costs.
As to the imperfect condition of the judgment-roll, want of jurisdiction does not affirmatively appear, and a judgment of a court of general jurisdiction is presumed valid until the contrary is shown. It is not enough to overcome this presumption that the judgment-roll is defective, or that some of the papers which should properly constitute a part of it are wanting. Gemmell v Rice, 13 Minn. 371, (400;) Williams v. McGrade, Id. 39, (46;) Jorgensen v. Griffin, 14 Minn. 346, (464;) Holmes v. Campbell, 12 Minn. 141, (221;) Piper v. Packer, 20 Minn. 245, (274.) These omissions are, however, sufficiently supplied and explained in the amended return made to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial