Ueland v. Lynch

• Decision Date: 01 November 1899
• Citation: 80 N.W. 700,77 Minn. 543
• Parties: UELAND v. LYNCH et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

77 Minn. 543

80 N.W. 700

UELAND

v.LYNCH et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 1, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; J. F. McGhee, Judge.

Action by Andreas Ueland, receiver of the Washington Bank, against John M. Lynch and others. Judgment for plaintiff. From an order refusing to set it aside, except on condition, defendant Lynch appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Action to enforce stockholders' liability. The summons named John Lynch as a defendant, and the complaint alleged that he was a stockholder of the corporation. The summons was personally served on John M. Lynch, the appellant herein, who was never a stockholder, and in fact was not the person upon whom the summons ought to have been served. He, however, failed to appear, and judgment was entered against him by default. Held, that the judgment was valid.

2. The trial court made its order granting appellant's motion to vacate the judgment and permit him to answer on condition that he pay $75 costs. Held, that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the condition. John M. Lynch and Chas. J. Berryhill, for appellant.

Andreas Ueland, in pro. per.

START, C. J.

This action was brought in the district court of the county of Hennepin against John Lynch and others to enforce their respective liability as stockholders of the Washington Bank, an insolvent corporation. The complaint alleged that the defendant John Lynch (not John M. Lynch) was the owner of six shares of the capital stock of the bank, and other facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against him. The summons named John Lynch as defendant, and recited that the complaint was on file in the clerk's office. It was personally served on the appellant herein, John M. Lynch, on February 25, 1897. He did not appear, and judgment was entered against the defendant John Lynch, by default, January 25, 1898. On March 25, 1899, the appellant moved the district court to set aside the judgment, and for leave to answer the complaint. The proposed answer denied that the appellant was the John Lynch named as one of the defendants in the action, and denied that he was, or ever had been, a stockholder of the Washington Bank. The trial court made its order setting aside the judgment, and granting the appellant leave to answer, on payment of $75 costs. He appealed from the order.

The appellant's first claim is that the service of the summons and the judgment are absolutely void as to him because he is not the John Lynch named in the summons and complaint as defendant. The John Lynch named in the action as defendant is admittedly the person who is charged in the complaint with the ownership of six shares of the stock of the bank. Whether the appellant is that person is the very issue which he tendered by his answer. The summons was personally served upom him, and he was thereby advised that the plaintiff claimed that he was the John Lynch who owned the stock, as charged in the complaint, and he was thereby called upon to come into court and meet the issue. He made default, and the court by its judgment necessarily determined the issue against him. He now asks the court to relieve him of his default, and permit him to answer and meet the proposed issue,-a proceeding wholly illogical and inconsistent if the judgment is void. The...