W. W. Kimball & Co. v. Brown
| Decision Date | 01 July 1898 |
| Citation | 75 N.W. 1043,73 Minn. 167 |
| Parties | W. W. KIMBALL & CO. v BROWN. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Where a summons is regular on its face, and is duly served, the court acquires jurisdiction of the cause. The fact that the complaint is not filed, or a copy thereof is not served with the summons, does not render the judgment void. It is a mere irregularity, and is waived unless the defendant moves to set aside the service.
Appeal from district court, Wabasha county; Arthur H. Snow, Judge.
Action by W. W. Kimball & Co., a corporation, against M. E. Brown. Judgment by default. From an order denying his motion to set aside the judgment, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Henry W. Morgan, for appellant.
William Burns, for respondent.
On November 9, 1897, the plaintiff caused to be served on the defendant a summons, regular in form, and entitled in the district court of Wabasha county, requiring her to answer the complaint; the summons stating that the complaint was filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of the Third judicial district in and for the county of Wabasha and state of Minnesota, and requiring her to serve a copy of her answer upon the plaintiff's attorney within20 days after the service of the summons upon her. At the time of the service of this summons no complaint was filed, and no copy thereof was ever served upon the defendant. The complaint was not filed with the clerk until December 17, 1897. The defendant did not answer or appear, and on January 24, 1898, judgment was entered and docketed against her in the sum of $71.30. On February 2, 1898, defendant served notice of motion to set aside the judgment on the grounds that the court acquired no jurisdiction of the action, and that the judgment entered was void for the reason that at the time of the service of the summons in said action no complaint therein was served upon defendant, nor was any complaint in said action filed in the office of the clerk of said district court, and none was filed therein until December 17, 1897, at which date both were filed with said clerk. The motion was denied, and defendant appeals.
“Civil actions in the district courts of this state shall be commenced by the service of a summons as hereinafter provided.” Gen. St. 1894, § 5193. The summons must be subscribed by the plaintiff or her attorney, and directed to the defendant, requiring him to answer the complaint, and serve a copy of his answer on the person whose name is subscribed to the summons, at a place within ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Francis v. Knerr
...26 Minn. 306, 3 N. W. 700; Lee v. Clark, 53 Minn. 315, 55 N. W. 127; Houlton v. Gallow, 55 Minn. 443, 57 N. W. 141; W. W. Kimball Co. v. Brown. 73 Minn. 167, 75 N. W. 1043. It is recognized, however, that the notice, by the service of which the court requires jurisdiction of the defendant, ......
-
Francis v. Knerr
... ... Mehmke, 26 Minn. 306, 3 N.W. 700; Lee v. Clark, ... 53 Minn. 315, 55 N.W. 127; Houlton v. Gallow, 55 ... Minn. 443, 57 N.W. 141; W.W. Kimball Co. v. Brown, ... 73 Minn. 167, 75 N.W. 1043 ... It is ... recognized, however, that the notice, by the service of which ... ...
-
United States v. Van Dusen
...on motion seasonably made. Lee v. Clark, 53 Minn. 315, 55 N. W. 127; Houlton v. Gallow, 55 Minn. 443, 57 N. W. 141; W. W. Kimball Co. v. Brown, 73 Minn. 167, 75 N. W. 1043; Oxmon v. Modern Woodmen, 124 Minn. 390, 145 N. W. 171. In Plano Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Kaufert, supra, 86 Minn. 1......
-
Francis v. Knerr
...26 Minn. 306, 3 N. W. 700;Lee v. Clark, 53 Minn. 315, 55 N. W. 127;Houlton v. Gallow, 55 Minn. 443, 57 N. W. 141;W. W. Kimball Co. v. Brown, 73 Minn. 167, 75 N. W. 1043. It is recognized, however, that the notice by the service of which the court acquires jurisdiction of the defendant must,......