Minnesota Supreme Court, 1882

Stone v. Johnson

Stone v. Johnson
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 17, 1882 · Yanderburgh
30 Minn. 16; 13 N.W. 920; 1882 Minn. LEXIS 5 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

W. H. Grant, for appellants., L. M. Brown, 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 1888, 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

Stone v. Johnson

Cases that cite this one

3 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

Yanderburgh, J.

The defendants appeal from the judgment in this case. The record contains the judgment-roll, with the findings of fact and law of the district court. But there is no statement of *18the case or bill of exceptions. The sole ground of- error urged by appellants in argument before this court is the rejection of certain evidence on the trial. The judge, in his decision, sets forth the evidence in question, and his rulings thereon and defendants’ exception. It is insisted by the respondent that the exception is not properly before us, and that it cannot be considered on this appeal. In this he is correct. Such exceptions can only be brought before this court for review upon a case or bill of exceptions. Bazille v. Ullman, 2 Minn. 110, (134;) Teller v. Bishop, 8 Minn. 195, (226;) Dartnell v. Davidson, 16 Minn. 477, (530;) Stewart v. Cooley, 23 Minn. 347.

Judgment affirmed.

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