Rasmusson v. County of Clay
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
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Anderson v. Board of Com'rs of Grant County (Okla. 1914)
- Board of Com'rs of Washita County v. Brett (Okla. 1912)
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Smith (Minn. 1901)
- State ex rel. Rochford v. Superior Court (Wash. 1892)
- Erskine v. Steele County (N.D. 1894)
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
Soon after the passage of chapter 181, Laws 1885, the respondent in this action, then clerk of the district court for Clay county, procured the books mentioned in section 1, and proceeded to index all of the judgment records in his office, in the form and manner contemplated .by the act. Before doing the work, however, he obtained two orders from the judge of the court of the same date, one fixing his fees therefor, the other directing that he index the records of his office, as provided by said chapter 181, from the organization of such office to date, and to charge his fees for such indexing to the county “for all cases disposed of or in judgment,” and in cases still pending to include his fees in the taxable costs, presum- • ably against the unsuccessful party. The question before us, which is raised by a general demurrer to a complaint, is, can the appellant county be held liable for all the indexing alleged to have been done-pursuant to the order and under the law? We are clearly of the opinion that it cannot. The statute directs that “it shall be the duty of the clerk of the district court of every county in this state to procure, at the expense of the county, two well-bound books, to be de
It is further urged by the respondent that the county may be bound by the orders of the district judge before mentioned. By Gen. St. 1878, c. 70, § 2, the judge is authorized to establish, by rule or order, fees for such services of the clerk as have not been provided for by law. And in chapter 28, Laws 1883, the court may direct that the clerk procure, at the expense of the county, and keep such books, in addition to those enumerated, as it may deem essential. In neither of these enactments is there any intimation that the fees which may accrue under such orders shall be chargeable to the counties. In the absence of a statute, a county cannot be made liable on the mere order of the court for services of the kind rendered in this instance.
Order reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.