Minnesota Supreme Court, 1871

Reagan v. Madden

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 15, 1871 · McMillan

17 Minn. 402 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

L. M. Brown, for Appellant., Henry Hinds, 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 2016, 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.

State of Minnesota v. Douglas John Olson (Minn. 2016)
Evans v. Fall River County (S.D. 1893)

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.

McMillan, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court, setting aside a judgment entered by default, and permitting the defendant to answer, &c.

Judgment was entered for the plaintiff on the 27th of September, 1869. Notice of the motion to set aside the judgment was given on the 25th of October, 1869, and in the meantime executions had been issued and levied, and money made thereon by sale, &c. The motion was granted, and the judgment set aside, on the 13th of November, 1869.

The motion, having been made for relief from the judgment on the grounds specified in sec. 105 of ch. 66 of the Gen *403Stat. within one year from the entry of the judgment, was addressed to the discretion of the court and will only be reversed on the ground of abuse of discretion by the court below. Myrick vs. Pierce, 5 Minn. 65; Jorgenson vs. Boehmer et al., 9 Minn. 181. That, upon the facts shown upon the motion, we might have come to a conclusion different from that arrived at by the district court is not a sufficient reason for reversing the order. Without reviewing the facts it suffices to say that the case presented upon the motion-does not show that in granting the motion there was any abuse of discretion.

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.

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