Minnesota Supreme Court, 1876

Mansfield v. Fleck

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 16, 1876 · Cornell

23 Minn. 61; 1876 Minn. LEXIS 85 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

E. 0. Wheeler, for appellant., Crandall & French, 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 2012, 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

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Stoebe v. Merastar Insurance Co. (Minn. 1996)
Wangensteen v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. (Minn. 1944)
Gallaher v. Titler (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)

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.

An offer of judgment, pursuant to Gen. St. c. 66, § 241, to be of any effect upon the recovery of costs occasioned by the trial, must be made and served ten days before the commencement of the trial. The plaintiff is entitled to the full period of ten days in which to accept or reject the offer, and, in case of acceptance, to give notice thereof. Pomeroy v. Hulin, 7 How. Pr. 161. In ascertaining this period, the day of service of the offer must be excluded, (Gen. St. c. 66, § 68,) and the trial must be *62regarded as a single point of time identical with its commencement. The offer in this case was served March 2d, and the trial of the action regularly commenced on the 12th of the same month. As the plaintiff had the whole of this latter day in which to decide upon the question of acceptance or rejection, and, in case of acceptance, to give notice thereof, it follows that the offer came too late to be effectual for any purpose.

Judgment affirmed.

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