Minnesota Supreme Court, 1896

Spriesterbach v. Schmidt

Spriesterbach v. Schmidt
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 17, 1896 · Buck
64 Minn. 211; 66 N.W. 721; 1896 Minn. LEXIS 94 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

John W. Lane, for appellants., Stringer (& Seymour, Hodgson <& Schaller, and Manalian Howard, for respondents.

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 1944, 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

Spriesterbach v. Schmidt

Cases that cite this one

4 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

BUCK, J.

This cause comes to this court on appeal from the judgment entered in the district court of Dakota county. The only testimony submitted to this court in the return is a stipulation of the respective counsel of certain facts, and a copy of the will of Gottfried Schmidt, which it is claimed were introduced in evidence on the trial in. the district court. There is no settled case, no bill of exceptions, and no certificate attached to the record by *212the trial judge, showing that the return, or any part thereof, is true and correct, or that it contains all or any of the evidence. Under these circumstances, we cannot presume that there was error ,in the trial court in ordering judgment. Error must be made to appear affirmatively.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

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