Minnesota Supreme Court, 1892

Althen v. Tarbox

Althen v. Tarbox
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 6, 1892
48 Minn. 1; 50 N.W. 828; 1892 Minn. LEXIS 361 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Warner, Richardson & Lawrence, for appellants., Louis M. Hastings, 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 1951, 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

Althen v. Tarbox

Cases that cite this one

5 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

Per Curiam,

(the Chiee Justice taking no part.) Plaintiff herein sought to establish and enforce a mechanic’s lien. By their answer defendants asserted the invalidity of the alleged lien, demanded that it be declared void, and that the same be canceled. On the trial the court dismissed the action upon plaintiff’s application. Treating *3the order of dismissal as effectual, defendants moved for a new trial, and from an order denying the motion they appeal.. The right to dismiss upon the trial was clearly within the discretion of the court, and the record fails to show that there was any abuse of this discretion.

Order affirmed.

(Opinion published 50 N. W. Rep. 828.)

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