Sorenson v. Swensen

• Decision Date: 16 October 1893
• Docket Number: 8443
• Citation: Sorenson v. Swensen, 55 Minn. 58, 56 N. W. 350 (Minn. 1893)
• Parties: Isaac O. Sorenson v. Peter P. Swensen
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

56 N.W. 350

55 Minn. 58

Isaac O. Sorenson v. Peter P. Swensen

No. 8443

Supreme Court of Minnesota

October 16, 1893

Submitted on briefs October 6, 1893.

Appeal by defendant, Peter P. Swensen, from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin County, Frederick Hooker, J entered May 12, 1893, against him for $ 105.71 damages and costs.

C. E Brame, for appellant.

The justice lost jurisdiction to enter judgment two days after the jury brought in their verdict.Our statute is like that of New York, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Nebraska and numerous other states.It requires that on receipt of the verdict by the justice, where a jury trial is had, he shall forthwith render judgment and enter the same in his docket.(1878 G. S ch. 65, § 68.)McNamara v. Spees,25 Wis. 539;Wearne v. Smith,32 Wis. 412;Hull v Mallory,56 Wis. 355;Bissell v. Bissell,11 Barb. 96;Hull v. Malony,10 Iowa 389;Watson v. Davis, 19 Wend. 371.

This statute is mandatory and not directory and if the justice could delay the rendition and entry of judgment two days he could delay it to an indefinite period.Stolt v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,49 Minn. 353;Craighead v. Martin, 25 Minn. 41.

In certain cases, our statute, like that of many other states, limits the justice to so many days in which to enter judgment in his docket after the case has been submitted to him for his decision, and wherever the courts have had occasion to pass on this statutethey have universally held that it is mandatory, and if a justice enters judgment after the time limited by statute, it is a void judgment.State ex rel. v. Whittet,61 Wis. 351;Sibley v. Howard, 3 Denio, 72.

Merrick & Merrick, for respondent.

The supreme court of Iowa in Burchett v. Cassady,18 Iowa 342, has construed the word "forthwith" to mean "in a reasonable time," and sustained a judgment entered on Monday where the confession was filed Saturday evening.This seems to us not only the better construction, but more in consonance with sound reasoning and justice.Wearne v. Smith,32 Wis. 412;Hall v. Tuttle, 6 Hill, 38;Tomlinson v. Litze,82 Iowa 32;McNamara v. Spees, 25 Wis. 539.

OPINION

Buck, J.

This case comes here upon an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Hennepin county affirming a judgment of a justice court in said county.The principal question involved, and the only one which we deem it necessary to consider, is whether, upon the return of the verdict in the justice court, the justice forthwith rendered judgment, and entered the same in his docket.To fully understand this legal question raised by the appellantwe quote a portion of the return of the justice, which is as follows: "Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for nineteen and two one-hundredths dollars ($ 19.02) damages, and cost of suit, between the hours of 12 M. and 1 P. M., August 20, 1892, whereupon judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff, and against the defendant, for nineteen and two one-hundredths dollars ($ 19.02) damages, and costs, taxed at sixty-seven and sixty-eight one-hundredths dollars, ($ 67.68;) total, eighty-six and seventy one-hundredths dollars, ($ 86.70.)Said judgment was not written up till August 22, 1892, as the court was engaged in other cases, and could not write it up sooner.Dated August 22, 1892.Elijah Barton, Justice of the Peace."

The contention of the appellant is that upon the return of the verdict the justice should have rendered his judgment thereon instantly, and entered the same in his docket, and that, not having done so until August 22d, he lost jurisdiction of the case; and to sustain this position he cites 1878 G. S. ch 65, § 68, which is as follows: "In cases where the plaintiff is nonsuited or withdraws his action or where judgment is confessed and in all cases where a...