Muellenberg v. Joblinski
| Decision Date | 10 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | 29,144 |
| Citation | 247 N.W. 570,188 Minn. 398 |
| Parties | M. MUELLENBERG v. JULIUS JOBLINSKI |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Defendant appealed from a judgment for $1,770.30 entered in the district court for Martin county, Julius E. Haycraft Judge, in favor of plaintiff. Reversed.
Appeal and error -- appeal from judgment -- settled case or bill of exceptions.
While an action was pending the parties made a settlement and executed a written stipulation of dismissal, with prejudice, which was filed with the clerk of court. Thereafter judgment was entered upon the merits pursuant to findings and an order for judgment made prior to the filing of the stipulation. Held:
1. Where the appeal is from a judgment, the validity of which depends upon the files and records in the case, which under our practice are before us pursuant to G.S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 9493, no settled case or bill of exceptions is necessary.
Appeal and error -- appeal from judgment -- matters for review.
2. The appeal from a judgment brings up for review only the prior proceedings which resulted in the judgment.
Dismissal and nonsuit -- by stipulation of parties.
3. The dismissal was authorized by G.S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 9322(2).
Dismissal and nonsuit -- by stipulation of parties.
4. Upon the filing of such dismissal the case was at an end, and the court was ousted of jurisdiction thereafter to enter judgment on the merits of the case.
Judgment -- res judicata -- void judgment inoperative as such.
5.Where a court has no jurisdiction to determine a particular issue in the action, its final order therein does not operate as res judicata.
Lewis Ward Martin and Henry Nycklemoe, for appellant.
Ballou & Ballou and McCune & McCune, for respondent.
The appeal is from a judgment.
Plaintiff prosecuted the action to recover $1,516.65 alleged to be due in part on an account and in part on a promissory note. Defendant denied the indebtedness. Issue was joined, and the case was noticed for trial. The parties then made a settlement and executed a stipulation on October 7, 1931, agreeing that the action "be and the same is, hereby dismissed, without costs to either party, and with prejudice." The parties executed the stipulation in the presence of two witnesses and acknowledged that same before a notary. The title of the cause, the stipulation, the execution and acknowledgment were on one sheet of paper, and at the bottom of the page was an order signed by the defendant, in the presence of two witnesses, authorizing the garnishee to pay to plaintiff's attorneys the sum of $500 out of his "inheritable interest in the Anna Kammerlander estate." This stipulation was filed with the clerk of court wherein the action was pending on November 25, 1931.
On October 15, 1931, the case was reached on the calendar for trial. Plaintiff's attorneys appeared. No one appeared for defendant. Plaintiff waived a jury and submitted his proofs. The court made and filed findings of fact directing judgment for the plaintiff.
On November 30, 1931, judgment was entered against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff for $1,684.30.
On December 20, 1931, defendant procured an order requiring plaintiff to show cause why the judgment should not be vacated because of the settlement. The application was later denied, and no appeal was taken from that order.
Respondent's brief urges that in the absence of a settled case or bill or exceptions the only question before us is whether the findings of fact support the conclusion of law; and that, since the findings of fact, conclusion of law, and order for judgment are not in the printed record, we must presume that they were sufficient, since the burden is upon the appellant to show error.
We do not however require any evidence in this case to bring before us the record which is the basis of this appeal. This judgment under the present attack must stand or fall upon the files and records in the case when it was entered. The original files and records are sufficient to require us to pass upon the question presented without any settled case or bill of exceptions. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Brown, 181 Minn. 392, 232 N.W. 740. See G.S. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 9493. Of course the appeal from a judgment brings up for review only the prior proceedings which result in the judgment.
G.S 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 9322(2), provides that one method for the dismissal of an action without final determination...
To continue reading
Request your trial