Minnesota Supreme Court, 1890

Mathews v. Taaffe

Mathews v. Taaffe
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 28, 1890 · Mitchell
44 Minn. 400; 46 N.W. 850; 1890 Minn. LEXIS 376 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Woods é Kingman and Hawley dé Hall, for appellant., Little & Nunn, for respondents.

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 1970, 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

Mathews v. Taaffe

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

Mitchell, J.

While the plaintiff himself cannot dismiss his action, where a provisional remedy has been allowed, or counterclaim made, or affirmative relief demanded in the answer, yet the court may do so, upon his application and sufficient cause shown, at any time before trial. Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 262, subd. 2. This power the court assumed to exercise in this case, and, if it erred in so doing, it was incumbent upon the appellant to make it appear. The record, which consists merely of the pleadings and the judgment of dismissal entered by the clerk, does not disclose what showing was made upon plaintiffs’ application, and hence fails to show that, in granting it, the court committed error.

Judgment affirmed.

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