Minnesota Supreme Court, 1869

Minnesota Valley R. R. v. Flynn

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 15, 1869 · Beeby

14 Minn. 552 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Heney Hinds for Appellant., Chateield & Iewin for Respondent.

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 1882, 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

Closen v. Allen (Minn. 1882)

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.

Beeby J.

This action was commenced in the district court to recover damages for trespass upon the plaintiff’s land. The complaint set up title in fee in the plaintiff to the loeus in quo, which title-was denied in the answer. Damages were laid in the complaint at $1000, but the jury assessed the same at one dollar only. Judgment *553was rendered for the plaintiff for the amount of the verdict, and for his costs and disbursements. Thereupon costs and disbursements were taxed by the clerk in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant excepting. Upon appeal to the district court, the clerk’s taxation was confirmed ; from the order of confirmation, the defendant appeals to this court. His only objection to the clerk’s taxation is, that under the provisions of Sections 2 and 3, Ch. 67, Gen. Stat., and Ch. 89, Laws 1868, the plaintiff was not entitled to costs or disbursements at all. This is however an objection which goes to the judgment, and not to the taxation. The judgment a%oarded costs and disbursemets to the plaintiff, and it was therefore the clerk’s duty to tax the same in favor of the plaintiff, and it is the clerk’s action in so doing, which was confirmed by the court below.

If there was error, it was in the judgment, not in the confirmation. The appellant has therefore mistaken his remedy in appealing from the. order of confirmation. He should have appealed from the judgment if at all.

Order affirmed.

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