Minnesota Supreme Court, 1894

Mead v. Sanders

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 20, 1894 · No. 8463 · Buck, Canty, Took

57 Minn. 108; 58 N.W. 683; 1894 Minn. LEXIS 232 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

L. S. Nelson, for appellant., A. J. Daley, 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 1902, 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.

May v. Grawert (Minn. 1902)

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

Canty, J.

This action was commenced in a justice court to recover $10 damages, caused by defendant’s cattle going upon plaintiff’s land, and eating his straw and fodder. The jury, after laboring two days, brought in a verdict for plaintiff for $3. Defendant appealed to the District Court on questions of law, and, upon affirmance by that court, appealed to this.

On the trial, plaintiff called the defendant for cross-examination,, and asked him wthat had become of a contract under which defendant had cropped part of the land, and under which he claimed a right to the straw and fodder. He answered that he gave it to-his attorney. This question was objected to by defendant, and the *109•overriding oí the objection by the justice is assigned as error. We are unable to see the error. The trial commenced at half past one o’clock Saturday afternoon, and, after the case was partly tried, some time that afternoon or evening, the court adjourned to the following Friday. The defendant objected to the adjournment, but took no exception. It must be understood from the record that he appeared and proceeded with the trial at the time to which it was adjourned, so that, if there was any irregularity in the adjournment, it was thereby cured. These are the only errors urged by appellant.

The appeals are about as frivolous as the original action, and the parties should be given a chance to rest from their legal strife.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed. So ordered.

Buck, J., absent, took no part.

{Opinion published 58 N. W. 683.)

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