Minnesota Supreme Court, 1888

Bray v. Church of St. Brandon

Bray v. Church of St. Brandon
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 16, 1888 · Dickinson
39 Minn. 390; 40 N.W. 518; 1888 Minn. LEXIS 135 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Kipp c& Preble, for appellant., W. II. Leeman and Cadwell & Parker, 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

Bray v. Church of St. Brandon

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite 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

Dickinson, J.

This action having been commenced by the service of the summons upon the treasurer of the defendant, a religious corporation, the defendant made no appearance, and judgment was entered by default. Upon a motion, based upon affidavits going to excuse the default, the court set aside the judgment, and allowed an answer to be interposed, upon the payment of costs. This appeal is from that order. The case justified the discretionary order appealed from. The application was seasonably made. A good defence was shown. The person upon whom the summons was served did not inform any other member of the corporation of that fact. Circumstances were shown indicating that he would be personally benefited by the plaintiff’s recovery in this action. It was within the discretionary power of the court to relieve the defendant from the consequences of such negligence or intentional omission of duty on the *391part of one of its officers. There is no reason to suppose that the plaintiff has suffered any prejudice except that he is required to try the action.

Order affirmed.

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