Board of County Commissioners v. Young
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 1902, 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.
- Plano Manufacturing Co. v. Kaufert (Minn. 1902)
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
This action was commenced in the district court for Sibley county, by the filing of a complaint, and the service of a summons, unaccompanied with a copy of the complaint. The notice contained in the summons was that prescribed in the case of ‘‘an action arising on contract for the payment of money only,” by the provisions of the first subdivision of § 45, ch. 66, Gen. Stat. ; whereas the character of the action, as is claimed, required a notice in conformity with the second subdivision of that section. A motion was made in the district court, by the defendant, to' set aside the complaint, on the ground that it did not, in this respect, conform to the summons. The motion Avas denied, and from the order denying it, defendant appealed to this court. Such an order is not an appealable one. It neither involves the merits of the action, nor any part thereof, nor does it in effect determine the action, and prevent a judgment from Avhich an appeal can be taken. See McCann v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 50 N. Y. 176.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.