Minnesota Supreme Court, 1890

Conrad v. Bauldwin

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 28, 1890 · Mitchell

44 Minn. 406; 46 N.W. 850; 1890 Minn. LEXIS 379 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Frank R. Hubachek, for appellant., Stocker do Matchan, 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 1934, 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.

Mardorf v. Duluth-Superior Transit Co. (Minn. 1934)

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.

Upon the trial, when the plaintiff rested his case, the court, on motion of defendants, dismissed the action, evidently, *407as appears from the record, upon the ground that the plaintiff hadl failed to establish a cause of action. The judgment entered uporc this order was one of dismissal merely, and not upon the merits» Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 262, subd. 3. Hence, under Gen. St. 1878,. c. 67, § 2, the defendants were only entitled to five dollars statutory-costs. The-cause is therefore remanded, with directions to the court-below to modify the judgment appealed from by deducting therefrom-five dollars. It is ordered, however, that the appellant shall not. recover any costs in this court.

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