Deering v. Johnson
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 1928, 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
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bright v. Juhl (S.D. 1903)
- State v. Lund (Minn. 1928)
- Brunnabend v. Tibbles (Mont. 1926)
- State v. Hughes (Minn. 1923)
- Smith v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. (Minn. 1916)
- Harcum v. Benson (Minn. 1916)
- Lawyer v. Great Northern Railway Co. (Minn. 1910)
- Richardson v. Rogers (Minn. 1887)
- Grove v. Morris (N.D. 1915)
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
The appeal in this case is from an order denying a new trial, made upon the settled case and upon affidavits, on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. It must be disposed of on the point made by the defendant, that the application for a new trial in the district court, made after the time to appeal from the judgment, and more than one year after the entry thereof, waB too late.
The judgment was entered on the 26th day of January, 1883, and the motion for a new trial was made on the 25th of February, 1884. The fact that the defendant accepted and agreed to the proposed case after the time to appeal from the judgment had expired, constituted no waiver of his right to object to the motion, particularly as no excuse whatever appears for the subsequent delay of six months. We think, therefore, the objection to the hearing of the motion in the court below might properly have been sustained under the rule in Conklin v. Hinds, 16 Minn. 411, (457,) and Kimball v. Palmerlee, 29 Minn. 302. The application was, however, denied on the merits, which we need not consider, as the order denying a new trial must in any event be affirmed on the ground above stated.
Ordered accordingly.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.