Minnesota Supreme Court, 1886

Flibotte v. Mullen

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 6, 1886 · Gtleillan

36 Minn. 144; 30 N.W. 448; 1886 Minn. LEXIS 262 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

G. D. O’Brien, for appellant., Jas. Schoonmaker, 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 1901, 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

Conron v. Hoerr (Minn. 1901)

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

Gtleillan, C. J.

There are two of these actions, in each of which’ there is an appeal by defendant from the judgment. In the first the judgment dismissed the action for insufficiency of the complaint. The only objection defendant makes to it is that the case had been tried, and that defendant was then entitled to have the cause determined on the merits. But there is no case nor bill of exceptions, — nothing to show at what stage of the case, whether pending the trial or before or after the final submission of the case, the order for dismissal was made. And there is therefore nothing in the record from which we can say that the court could not order a judgment of dismissal.

*145In the second, which was for the same cause as the first, the only objection made is that the court should have sustained defendant’s answer, alleging the pendency of the former action. The case is presented, as the first is, without any statement of the case or bill of exceptions, so that we know what took place at the trial only from the facts found by the court below, to wit, the commencement of the first action, and its dismissal before the commencement of the second action. On those facts the answer could not be sustained.

Both judgments affirmed.

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