Minnesota Supreme Court, 1877

Allis v. Davidson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided March 26, 1877 · Cornell

23 Minn. 442; 1877 Minn. LEXIS 45 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Allis & Allis and II. J. Horn, for appellant., Bigelow, Flandrau & Glarlc, 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 1897, 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

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Lux v. Columbian Fruit Canning Co. (Kan. 1926)
Williams v. Southern Pacific Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)
Commonwealth v. Harkness' Administrator (Ky. Ct. App. 1918)
Marshall v. Wichita & Midland Valley Railroad (Kan. 1915)
Black v. Thomson (Ill. App. Ct. 1905)
Northern Trust Co. v. Crystal Lake Cemetery Ass'n (Minn. 1897)
Merritt v. American Steel-Barge Co. (8th Cir. 1897)
Chicago, Kansas & Western Railroad v. Board of Commissioners (Kan. 1892)
Shepard v. Stockham (Kan. 1891)
Adams v. Adams (Minn. 1878)

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.

Both plaintiff and defendant were parties to the foreclosure suit, the judgment in which is interposed as a bar to the present action by the supplemental answer of the defendant herein. Under the issues tendered bv the *445bill of complaint in that suit, the validity of the note and mortgage in controversy, and the amount due thereon, were necessarily involved find adjudged by the judgment therein rendered. The jurisdiction of that court being undoubted, both as respects the subject-matter and the parties, it follows that its judgment, when properly pleaded, is a conclusive bar to any further litigation of the same matters arising between the same parties in any other action, whether such other action was begun before or after the suit wherein the judgmont was rendered. Poorman v. Mitchell, 48 Mo. 45. The object of the present action is to impeach the validity of the note and mortgage, and procure their cancellation. So long as the judgment of the federal court remains in force, it precludes the parties from entering upon or prosecuting any such litigation.

Order affirmed.

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