Minnesota Supreme Court, 1888

Rauen v. Burg

Rauen v. Burg
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 11, 1888
38 Minn. 389; 37 N.W. 946; 1888 Minn. LEXIS 404 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Jordan, Penney é Hammond, for appellant., C. A. Ebert and J. H. Long, 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 1906, 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

Rauen v. Burg

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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.

The pleadings were made within one week after the return-day of the summons, and in time, under Gen. St. 1878, c. 65, § 23. It is not a case where the court will notice fractions of a day. The intent of the plaintiff, by his oral reply, to put in issue the defendant’s counterclaim is plain enough, and, though informal, we think it ought to be construed as a denial of defendant’s claim as a subsisting cause of action. Had the plaintiff refused to amend upon the direction of the court, after specific objection to the pleading, under section 33, it might have been disregarded. But the defendant *390could not have been misled, and we see no reason why, under the pleadings as made, the simple questions of fact in the case could not have been summarily and fairly disposed of upon the merits at the trial. Oral pleadings which parties may make in justice’s court, without 'the aid of counsel, are not to be construed with technical strictness, but with great liberality in furtherance of justice. To hold otherwise would tend to encourage appeals upon purely technical grounds.

Judgment affirmed.

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