Minnesota Supreme Court, 1893

Gillette-Herzog Manufacturing Co. v. Ashton

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 18, 1893 · Vanderburgh

55 Minn. 75; 56 N.W. 576; 1893 Minn. LEXIS 143 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Kellogg á Laybourn, for appellant., Janes é Cady and F. L. Janes, 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 2015, 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

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Lesewski v. Nielsen (Minn. 1959)
Tammy Marie Salisbury v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission (Conn. 1973)
Thon v. Erickson (Minn. 1950)
Campbell v. Coulston (N.D. 1910)
Crane & Ordway Co. v. Sauntry (Minn. 1903)

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

Vanderburgh, J.

The defendant appeared and demanded a copy of the complaint, which was served by mail on the 5th day of December, 1892. The service by mail gave the defendant double the time he would otherwise have been entitled to in which to answer.

Judgment by default was prematurely entered by plaintiff on December 16,1892; and the answer received by mail on December 17th was refused and returned by plaintiff, on the sole ground indorsed thereon, — that the same was not served in time. The defendant had an absolute right to have the judgment set aside, because the time for answering had not expired. He accordingly applied to the District Court of Hennepin county, upon affidavit setting forth the facts, and procured a stay of proceedings, with an order to show cause why the judgment should not be set aside, procured on January 6, .and returnable January 21, 1893. Upon the hearing, the relief sought was granted.

There is no doubt that the merits of the application are fairly disclosed by the affidavit and order, and that defendant was shown to be justly entitled to such relief. The plaintiff, however, seasonably objected to the form of the application, on the ground, that the rules of the District Court of Hennepin county were not complied with in making the same. These provided that an order to show •cause must be accompanied by a notice of motion setting forth the *77grounds thereof, and that an order to show cause should not be granted when a motion can be made in the ordinary form upon notice. Such rules are very proper for courts to adopt for the orderly discharge of business; and if the court had sustained the objection, and refused the application without prejudice, this court would doubtless not have interfered. But, in its discretion, the court saw ñt to suspend their operation in this particular instance, and dispose of the application on its merits. It was competent for the court to do this, Nye v. Swan, 42 Minn. 245, (44 N. W. Rep. 9;) and as the case was rightly determined on the merits, after due notice to the plaintiff and opportunity to be heard, the order appealed from should be affirmed.

(Opinion published 56 N. W. Rep. 576.)

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