Colstrum v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
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 1913, 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.
- Alaska Gold Recovery Co. v. Northern Mining & Trading Co. (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1926)
- Upton v. Merriman (Minn. 1913)
- Howard v. Erbes (Minn. 1910)
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
That the facts stated in the complaint constitute a single cause of action is too plain to require argument. If, in demanding judgment both for the possession of the premises, and also for an injunction restraining the continuance of the trespass upon them, the prayer asks for inconsistent forms of relief, the remedy is by motion, and not by demurrer for misjoinder of different causes of action. The demand for judgment forms no part of the “cause of action.” Pomeroy on Remedies, §§ 452, 462; Durant v. Gardner, 19 How. Pr. 94.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.