Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1875

Lamberton v. Raymond

Lamberton v. Raymond
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided August 19, 1875 · Cornell
22 Minn. 129; 1875 Minn. LEXIS 38 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

William IT. Yale, for appellant., R. R. Briggs, 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 1950, 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

Lamberton v. Raymond

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite 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

Cornell, J.

Admitting that the justice had no power to' allow the amendment, (concerning which no opinion is necessary,) and that all proceedings had before him, after the filing of the original complaint, and before its amendment, *130were corctm non judice, the subsequent proceedings and conduct of the parties remove all questions of a jurisdictional character. The subject-matter of the action, both as respects its nature and the amount claimed, as disclosed by the amended complaint, was clearly within the jurisdictional limits of the justice. Both parties thereafter, without objection, litigated it before the court by the introduction of testimony on each side, and the submission of the same upon argument to the jury. This was equivalent to the institution and litigation of an action over which the justice had undoubted jurisdiction by the voluntary appearance and argument of the parties.

The order of the district court should be reversed, and the judgment of the justice affirmed.

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