Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1882

Closen v. Allen

Closen v. Allen
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided March 28, 1882 · Berry
29 Minn. 86; 12 N.W. 146; 1882 Minn. LEXIS 46 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Briggs <& Elders, for appellant., Burnham é Gould, 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 1929, 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

Closen v. Allen

Cases that cite this one

4 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

Berry, J.

Plaintiffs having recovered, in justice’s court, a judgment against defendant for $11.62, the latter appealed to the proper district court, upon questions of law alone. The district court, upon trial, gave judgment, on November 28, 1879, for plaintiffs, for the *87amount of the justice’s judgment, with costs and disbursements. On December 17, 1879, the clerk, on due notice, taxed, among other items, “costs by statute, $10.” Defendant objected and appealed. The appeal was heard April 6, 1880, and on dune 7, 1880, an order made by the court affirming the taxation. September 29, 1S80, plaintiffs served on defendant notice of the affirming order/and on October 28, 1880, defendant appealed from the order to this court.

Plaintiffs insist that the order is not appealable, and in this they are supported by Minnesota Valley R. Co. v. Flynn, 14 Minn. 552. In this case, as in that, the taxation and its affirmation were in accordance with the judgment, and the objection is one which goes to the judgment, and not to the taxation. This appeal must accordingly be dismissed. We call attention, however, to the fact that the question as to the propriety of taxing the item objected to is decided in favor of the taxation made and affirmed in this case, in Watson v. Ward, 27 Minn. 29.

Appeal dismissed.

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