Minnesota Supreme Court, 1892

Carlson v. Carlson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 16, 1892 · Collins

49 Minn. 555; 52 N.W. 214; 1892 Minn. LEXIS 226 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

W. Hammons and J. A. Payne, for appellants., John Jenswold, Jr., 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 1932, 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

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Universal Insurance Company v. Brasie (Minn. 1932)
Laplante v. Knutson (Minn. 1928)
First Trust & Savings Bank v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Minn. 1923)
Olson v. Advance Rumely Thresher Co. (S.D. 1920)
State ex rel. Working v. District Court (Mont. 1915)
Clopton v. Clopton (N.D. 1902)
Miller v. Scovell (Minn. 1904)

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

Collins, J.

Defendants, three in number, appeal from an order denying their motion to set aside and vacate a judgment entered against them, for want of answer, in the month of June, 1890. In November, 1891, two of these defendants moved the court, on affidavits and all files and records, to modify the judgment as to them by materially reducing it in amount, which motion was denied. After-wards, in the month of December, all of the defendants, on the files and records and other affidavits, moved the court to vacate and set aside the judgment, and this motion was denied. Later, in January, 1892, the same defendants, on the files and records and on affidavits which did not substantially differ from those previously used, again moved the court to vacate and set aside the judgment. The order denying this motion is the one appealed from, and it must be affirmed. It is not improbable, as urged by counsel for respondent, that several reasons may be given in j ustification of the order appealed from ; but, if no other existed, it is sufficient to say that the court had previously passed on a motion of the same import, based, practically, on the same grounds, when called upon to consider that now before *557us, and that this point was raised by respondent’s counsel on the last hearing. In effect, the motion last made was a renewal, without application or leave to renew, of one already made, considered on its merits, and'disposed of. While the decision of amotion is not usually regarded in the light of res adjuclicata, the well-established practice is that, after a motion has been fully heard and determined, it shall not be renewed, and the same questions again raised, except on leave of the court first had or obtained. Sometimes this leave is a part of the order passing on the matter, but ordinarily an independent application has to be made for it. Swanstrom v. Marvin, 38 Minn. 359, (37 N. W. Rep. 455;) Weller v. Hammer, 43 Minn. 195, (45 N. W. Rep. 427.) Unless this be the correct practice and the established rule be adhered to, there would be no end to motions, interlocutory and otherwise, having in view the obtaining of the same relief, and based upon precisely the same state of facts.

(Opinion published 53 N. W. Rep. 314.)

Order affirmed.

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