Minnesota Supreme Court, 1888

State v. Sannerud

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 14, 1888

38 Minn. 229; 36 N.W. 447; 1888 Minn. LEXIS 359 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Thomas Canty, for appellant., Moses E. Clapp, Attorney General, and F. F. Davis, for the State.

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 1910, 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.

Macomber v. Kinney (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

By the Court.

Defendant makes the same assignments of error as in State v. Peterson, ante, p. 143, with the additional one that the name of the licensee of the place specified in the indictment, where it appears that the defendant was engaged in selling liquors at the *230date in question, as disclosed by tbe records of the comptroller, was not that of the defendant. His name, it appears, was Bernt' Sannerud, while the name entered was Bert Samrud. A clerical error of that kind might easily occur. But the resemblance was sufficiently clear, both in spelling and in sound, to warrant the reception of the evidence, in connection with the identification of the place and the defendant as the occupant. The evidence was properly received; and, in the absence of any countervailing proof, the verdict was warranted.

Judgment affirmed.

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