Minnesota Supreme Court, 1873

Hilderbrandt v. Robbecke

Hilderbrandt v. Robbecke
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 15, 1873 · McMillan
20 Minn. 100 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Cornman & Lecky, for Appellant., Wm. M. McCluer, for Eespondent.

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 1985, 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

Hilderbrandt v. Robbecke

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites 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.

McMillan, J.

The complaint in this action is not very accurately drawn, but upon a motion after judgment, at least, is sufficient. The judgment by default was regularly entered against defendant ; if set aside or opened it must be for cause shown by defendant.

The affidavit of the defendant used in the court below upon the motion to open and set aside the judgment and for leave to answer, is wholly uncontradicted. A recital of the facts stated therein is unnecessary here. It suffices to say, we think they show clearly that the defendant exercised all the diligence which could reasonably be required of him to defend the action; that he was misled and deceived by the attorney employed by him; that the entry of the judgment against him was a surprise, and that he has no redress against his *102attorney who is insolvent. The defendant’s verified answer accompanying and presented with the affidavit sets up a meritorious ground of defense, and the defendant moved without delay for relief from the judgment entered against him. It would be difficult to find a case in -which a judgment should be opened or set aside for inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, if not in this one. ■ We think the motion should have been granted.

The order appealed from is reversed.

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