State v. Rigg
| Decision Date | 04 December 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 37939,37939 |
| Citation | 257 Minn. 25,99 N.W.2d 669 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota ex rel. Leonard A. PETSCHEN, Relator-Appellant, v. Douglas C. RIGG, Warden Minnesota State Prison, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
M.S.A. § 589.29 provides that any aggrieved party may appeal to the supreme court from a final order in habeas corpus proceedings in the same manner as other appeals are taken from the district court but that no bond shall be required. On respondent's motion, relator's appeal is dismissed for failure to perfect the same within the time prescribed by § 605.08.
Leonard A. Petschen, pro se.
Miles Lord, Atty. Gen., Henry H. Feikema, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Washington County discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to the custody of the warden of the Minnesota State Prison. Respondent moves for a dismissal of the appeal for failure of relator to comply with M.S.A. § 605.08.
The appeal states that it is taken from an order of the court entered on August 21, 1959, vacating the writ of habeas corpus granted on June 11. There is no order of the court entered on August 21 and it is clear that relator intended to appeal from the order of the court dated July 20, 1959, which order was filed with the clerk of the District Court of Washington County on July 22. Since this clearly appears from the wording of the notice of appeal we will, in this instance, so treat the appeal.
Section 589.29 provides that any aggrieved party may appeal to this court from a final order in habeas corpus proceedings in the same manner as other appeals are taken from the district court but that no bond shall be required of the appellant. Section 605.08, which is applicable here, provides: 'An appeal * * * may be taken * * * from an order within 30 days after written notice of the same from the adverse party.'
On July 28, 1959, a copy of the order dated July 20, pursuant to § 605.08, was served by the attorney for respondent upon the relator by mail. This gave the relator up to and including August 31 to take his appeal to this court. 1 The appeal, however, was not taken until September 10, several days after the time for appeal had expired. What we said in State ex rel. Farrington v. Rigg, 248 Minn. 49, 50, 78 N.W.2d 721, applies with equal force here:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Madison v. Tahash
...appeal in the ordinary civil case will be dismissed, so too will a late appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding. State ex rel. Petschen v. Rigg, 257 Minn. 25, 99 N.W.2d 669 (1959). The District Court's Order of denial in the instant case was filed August 9, 1965, but there is no suggestion in ......
-
Soyka v. Comm'r Revenue, A13–0434.
...deadline to appeal an order in a civil case “ ‘within 30 days after written notice of the same from the adverse party.’ ” 257 Minn. 25, 26, 99 N.W.2d 669, 670 (1959) (emphasis added) (quoting Minn.Stat. § 605.08 (1957)). 3 When we stated the applicable appeal deadline in Rigg, we applied Ru......
- State ex rel. Elkins v. Ramsey County, 37812
-
Reub's Minot Camera, Inc. v. General Elec. Credit Corp.
...Copper State Mining Co. v. Wills, 20 Ariz. 174, 178 P. 30 (1919); Brooks v. Engel, 159 N.W.2d 438 (Iowa 1968); State ex rel. Petschen v. Rigg, 257 Minn. 25, 99 N.W.2d 669 (1959); State ex rel. Farrington v. Rigg, 248 Minn. 49, 78 N.W.2d 721 (1956); Elliott v. Retail Hardware Mut. Fire Ins. ......