Kubesh v. Hanson

• Decision Date: 04 November 1904
• Parties: KUBESH v. HANSON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

93 Minn. 259

101 N.W. 73

KUBESH

v.HANSON.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 4, 1904.

Appeal from District Court, Renville County; Gorham Powers, Judge.

Action by Josephine Kubesh against Simon Hanson. Judgment for defendant. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Action to set aside a judgment against the plaintiff recovered in justice court on the ground that it is void. Held:

1. Defects in the pleadings in a civil action-for example, the failure of the complaint to state facts constituting a cause of action-do not render a judgment void. It is valid unless reversed or set aside on appeal, or by some other appropriate proceeding in the action.

2. The complaint in the action in justice court is sufficient as against an objection made for the first time after judgment.

3. The evidence sustains the finding of the trial court that the summons in the action in which the judgment was entered was duly served on the defendant therein. J. M. Freeman, for appellant.

John J. Shoregge, for respondent.

START, C. J.

Action in equity to set aside a judgment against the plaintiff obtained in justice court by default, and for an injunction enjoining its collection on the ground that the judgment is void as to her. The trial court made findings of fact in favor of the defendant, and directed judgment to be entered dismissing the action on the merits. The plaintiff appealed from an order denying her motion for a new trial.

The reasons alleged in the complaint, and here urged, why the judgment in question was void, are that the complaint in the action in which the judgment was rendered did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and, further, that the summons was never served on the defendant therein, the plaintiff; hence the justice had no jurisdiction in the premises. The judgment was recovered in the justice court against the plaintiff herein and her husband, John Kubesh, for the sum of $74.45. The complaint in that action was to the effect following: That at the dates hereinafter mentioned the defendants were, and still are, husband and wife and partners in business; that on July 28, 1897, the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant John Kubesh for the sum of $53.60; that said judgment has not been paid, set aside, nor annulled in any way, and still remains in full force and effect; that some time prior to the entry of this judgment the defendant Josephine Kubesh obtained the title of certain lands, the property of the said John Kubesh, with the understanding that she should pay the debts of the said John Kubesh, it being part of the consideration of the transfer of the land to her, and especially this claim in particular; that then and thereafter the said Josephine Kubesh became jointly liable on this judgment; that, though payment of said judgment has been demanded of these defendants, and each of them, no part of same has ever been paid. Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against the above-named defendants, and each of them, jointly and severally, for the sum of $53.60.

A judgment is never void for error if the court has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and the subject-matter of the action. Therefore defects in the pleadings in a civil action-for example, the failure...