Minnesota Supreme Court, 1896

Billson v. Lardner

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 24, 1896 · Buck

67 Minn. 35; 69 N.W. 477; 1896 Minn. LEXIS 336 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Billson, Gongdon ds Dickvnson, for appellants., Wilson dk Wray and J. I. Washburn, 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 1976, 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.

E.C.I. Corp. v. G.G.C. Co. (Minn. 1976)
Zimmern v. United States (5th Cir. 1936)
Obradovich v. Walker Bros. Bankers (Utah 1932)

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.

Upon the merits this case is controlled by that of Wolf v. McKinley, 65 Minn. 156, 68 N. W. 3.

Upon the question of. practice it appears that the trial court made its findings of fact and the order thereon on February 6, 1896, and filed the same February 7, 1896. Subsequently, pursuant to an agreement made between the respective attorneys, amended findings and an order thereon were made by the trial court, and substituted for the original findings, the order bearing date February 21, 1896, and filed February 26,1896. There was some controversy as to the extent and materiality of the additional findings, but, so long as they stood as the completed findings and final order of the court upon the merits, .they must be deemed as the only ones legally in force. The last findings had attached an order for 20 days’ stay. The appeal, therefore, could be taken from the order dated February 21,' 1896, within 30 days after written notice of the same.

*36As the order made herein by the trial court is in conflict with the decision of this court made in the case of Wolf v. McKinley, it is hereby reversed, and the case remanded to the district court of St. Louis county, and said court'directed to amend its conclusions of law, and cause an order to be entered therein awarding to the defendant William P. Lardner, as assignee of William McKinley, insolvent, the funds in controversy.

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