Minnesota Supreme Court, 1879

State ex rel. Long v. Cox

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 13, 1879 · Gxleillan

26 Minn. 214; 2 N.W. 494; 1879 Minn. LEXIS 216 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

B. S. Lewis, for relator., E. St. Jalien Cox, respondent, pro se.

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 1904, 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

6 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Ronk (Minn. 1904)
Rhodes v. Board of Public Works (Colo. App. 1897)
Rhodes v. Board of Public Works (Colo. App. 1897)
Richardson v. Rogers (Minn. 1887)
Sherman v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. (Minn. 1883)
State ex rel. Schmitt v. Macdonald (Minn. 1882)

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

Gxleillan, C. J.

After a verdict for plaintiff in the cause below, in which tbe relators were defendants, tbe defendants made a statement of the case, and the parties stipulated that *215it was correct. The defendants thereupon gave notice of a. motion to have the stipulated ease certified and approved by the judge who tried the case, and of a motion at the same-time for a new trial, upon the ease as certified and approved. These motions appear to have been heard, and the motion for a new trial denied. The motion for the certifying of the case was not then decided, but was subsequently renewed and denied. It appears from the order denying it that the motion for a new trial was heard and decided on the case as stipulated by the parties. Hearing the motion on that case was an approval of it, and left nothing for the judge to do, in order to make the case complete, but the mere mechanical act of certifying to it. The judge ought to have certified the case as stipulated by the parties and acted on by him, and as of the date when presented to him to be certified.

Let a peremptory writ issue, commanding the respondent to certify to the case as stipulated, and as of the date of May 27, 1879.

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