Minnesota Supreme Court, 1859

Babcock v. Banning

Babcock v. Banning
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 15, 1859 · Elanhrau
3 Minn. 191 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

D. C. Cooley, Counsel for Plaintiff in Error., H. J. Horn, Counsel for Defendant in Error.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1974, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Babcock v. Banning

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court

— Elanhrau, J.

This Court will not entertain a case and review a judgment rendered in the District Court, where it appears satisfactorily that the subject* matter of the action has been settled by the parties, and the judgment satisfied. It is quite clear from the affidavits read on this motion, that Babcock knew of and assented to the adjustment of *192the debt and tbe satisfaction of tbe judgment. He bas no right under such circumstances to continue tbe litigation of questions practically put at rest, against tbe will of tbe other party to tbe action; nor bas be any right to expect this Court to consume its time in tbe decision of questions of abstract moment only.

Tbe motion to dismiss tbe writ is granted.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.