Minnesota Supreme Court, 1895

Vaule v. Steenerson

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 3, 1895 · Collins

63 Minn. 110; 65 N.W. 257; 1895 Minn. LEXIS 451 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Ole J. Vaule, appellant, pro se., II Steenerson and TV. E. Rowe, 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

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Jenkinson v. Koester (Minn. 1902)
J. Thompson & Sons Manufacturing Co. v. Ferch (Minn. 1900)
Taylor v. St. Paul City Railway Co. (Minn. 1900)

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.

The plaintiff herein attempted to set forth two distinct causes of action in his complaint, and the defendant demurred upon two grounds: First, that several causes of action were improperly united; and, second, that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court below sustained the-demurrer.

1. We are of the opinion that, as to the first cause of action, as' alleged, the general demurrer to the complaint as a whole was not well taken; for, while the averments might have been more explicit, enough appeared to constitute a cause of action against defendant as sheriff of his county for wrongfully and unlawfully refusing and neglecting to levy upon and seize property then within his jurisdiction, by virtue of an execution duly issued, directed, and delivered to him as such sheriff, and thereafter returning said execution wholly unsatisfied.

2. Assuming, as is contended by plaintiff (appellant), and as we-must assume when disposing of the demurrer upon the first ground. *112stated, that sufficient facts were alleged to constitute the second cause of action, the two causes of action were improperly united, and for this reason the order appealed from must be affirmed. The first cause of action was for defendant’s neglect and refusal to make a levy by virtue of the execution in his hands, duly issued upon a certain judgment; the second was for wrongfully and unlawfully levying another execution, also in his hands for service, upon the same judgment, and appropriating the proceeds thereof. Even if it could be held that these two causes arose out of transactions connected with the same subject of action, it is evident that they were inconsistent with each other and contradictory, so that they could not be united in the same action. See Moak, Van Santvoord, PI. 186, 187, and cases cited.

Although less than $100 was involved herein, counsel for both parties disregarded rule 15 (44 Minn, xix., 44 N. W. iv.), and caused the case to be set down for oral argument. For this reason no statutory costs will be allowed the prevailing party.

Order affirmed.

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