Minnesota Supreme Court, 1885

State ex rel. Gold v. Secrest

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 25, 1885 · Gtlfillan

33 Minn. 381; 23 N.W. 545; 1885 Minn. LEXIS 86 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Fayette Marsh, for appellant., J. N. & I. W. Castle, 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 1914, 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 ex rel. Shafer v. District Court of the Third Judicial District In & for Ransom County (N.D. 1923)
Miller v. Stenseth (N.D. 1918)
State ex rel. Prall v. District Court (Minn. 1914)
State ex rel. Treat v. Hammel (Wis. 1907)
Anderson v. Haslett (Kan. 1910)
State ex rel. Smith v. Drake (Wis. 1892)

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

Gtlfillan, 0. J.1

We think the court below decided correctly both the points presented, — that touching the jurisdiction of the defendant as justice of the peace to try the case commenced before him, and also whether the case is a proper one for a mandamus. Another reason *384than that assigned by the court below for its decision of the latter question may be given. A court would never issue a mandamus if it be clearly apparent that the writ would be futile, as it would be in this case. The justice dismissed the case before him, and released the defendant. He was in error in so doing, but the case, nevertheless, ceased to be a cause pending before him. When a criminal case before a justice is disposed of so as to be out of court, we know of no way by which the justice can reinstate the case, or bring the party before him for trial, without commencing anew. The writ ought not to issue requiring him to do what the law gives him no authority to do.

Order affirmed.

Berry, J., was absent and took no part in tbis case.

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