Westervelt v. King
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 1892, 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
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- People's Ice Co. v. Schlenker (Minn. 1892)
- Entrop v. Williams (Minn. 1866)
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 The motion to dismiss the appeal in this case is well made. The order below opening the judgment decided simply a question of practice as to the service of the answer. It in no way “ involved the merits of the action.” Nor can it be said to be “ a summary application in an action after judgment,” in the sense of subdivision six, of section twelve, {marginal), on pages 621-2, of the New Statutes. An order to fall within that subdivision must be one which is made in some proceeding which recognizes the judgment, and is predicated upon the existence of it, and not an order in a proceeding which is aimed to set it aside. The order for these reasons is clearly not appealable. See 3 How. P. R. 357, 425,; 10 How. Pr. R. 89; 3 Code Rep. 141.
The appeal is dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.