Maclean v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 29 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 26806.,26806. |
| Citation | 220 N.W. 435,175 Minn. 112 |
| Parties | MacLEAN v. REYNOLDS et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; T. H. Salmon, Judge.
Action by Edwin L. MacLean against Thelma Reynolds and another. From an order denying defendant's application to vacate judgment as default and for leave to answer and defend, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Doherty, Rumble, Bunn & Butler, of St. Paul, for appellants.
Edwin L. MacLean, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Defendants appealed from an order denying their application to vacate a judgment as default and for leave to answer and defend.
Plaintiff is a lawyer living and practicing in Minneapolis. He sued defendants to collect $25 for professional services. Time for answering expired December 12, 1927. Not having received an answer, he entered judgment on December 14, 1927. Defendants reside in St. Paul. Their counsel dictated an answer on December 12, 1927, and one of their employees claims to have mailed it on that day. Plaintiff's affidavit says he received the answer on December 16, 1927, and that it was stamped as mailed on the 15th. He also states that on the 16th he wrote defendants' counsel advising that the answer came too late and that judgment had been entered.
An execution was issued on December 14, 1927, to the sheriff of Ramsey county, who collected the amount of the judgment and returned the execution fully satisfied.
1. If the copy of the answer was mailed to plaintiff on December 12, 1927, the service was complete, whether it was received or not, and there was no default. Kay v. Elsholtz, 138 Minn. 153, 164 N. W. 665; Hurley Bros. v. Haluptzok, 142 Minn. 269, 171 N. W. 928; 5 Dunnell's Minn. Dig. (2d Ed.) § 8731.
2. Plaintiff's name was subscribed to the summons and to the complaint, giving his office number to which the answer was mailed. It is suggested that, since the statute (G. S. 1923, § 9242) requires service by mail to be made by directing it to the addressee at his "place of residence," that service was not good because not addressed to the street number of plaintiff's home instead of to his office. We do not sustain this contention. "Place of residence," as used in the statute, refers to the municipality in which the addressee lives, and not to the house he occupies as a home.
3, 4. The more serious question in this case relates to whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants' application, even after a finding that the mailing was on the 15th.
Defendants did not have a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Escher v. Morrison
...of return receipt); Wasden v. Foell, 63 Idaho 83, 117 P.2d 465 (1941); Benson v. Benson, 291 S.W.2d 27 (Ky.1956); MacLean v. Reynolds, 175 Minn. 112, 220 N.W. 435 (1928); Johnson & Dealaman, Inc. v. Wm. F. Hegarty, Inc., 93 N.J.Super. 14, 224 A.2d 510 (1966); Hurley v. Olcott, 198 N.Y. 132,......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
...395 P.2d 527 (1964); Ford v. Genereux, 104 Colo. 17, 87 P.2d 749 (1939); Benson v. Benson, 291 S.W.2d 27 (Ky.1956); MacLean v. Reynolds, 175 Minn. 112, 220 N.W. 435 (1928); Hurley v. Olcott, 198 N.Y. 132, 91 N.E. 270 (1910); Stroh v. State Accident Insurance Fund, 261 Or. 117, 492 P.2d 472 ......
-
Wasden v. Foell
... ... 852, 34 L. R. A. 466; ... Isaak v. Journey, 52 Idaho 274, 13 P.2d 247; ... Hobson v. Security State Bank, 56 Idaho 601, 57 P.2d ... 685; MacLean v. Reynolds et al., 220 N.W. 435, 175 ... Minn. 112; 12-502-3 I. C. A ... It ... would seem, therefore, that the trial court was correct ... ...
-
In re Belt Line Phalen, Etc., Sewer Assessment
...N. W. 447; Peterson v. Bengston, 166 Minn. 494, 207 N. W. 20; Swan v. Rivoli Theatre Co., 174 Minn. 197, 219 N. W. 85; MacLean v. Reynolds, 175 Minn. 112, 220 N. W. 435. 4. The applicant must not be guilty of laches, but must act with diligence. Kipp v. Clinger, 97 Minn. 135, 106 N. W. 108;......