Minnesota Supreme Court, 1897

Looney v. Drometer

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 2, 1897

69 Minn. 505; 72 N.W. 797; 1897 Minn. LEXIS 314 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

J. M. Millett, for appellant., Ernest Otte, 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 1901, 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.

Smith v. Kistler (Minn. 1901)

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

PER CURIAM.

The district court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it did not appear that the notice of appeal, with proof of service, was ever filed with the justice as required by statute. This is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the al*506lowance of an appeal that cannot be dispensed with. Without it there is no appeal. Marsile v. Milwaukee, 28 Minn. 4; Larrabee v. Morrison, 15 Minn. 151 (196). There is no presumption that the notice of appeal was filed. Every jurisdictional fact must appear in the return of the justice. McFarland v. Butler, 11 Minn. 42 (72); Marsile v. Milwaukee, supra. If the notice of appeal was in fact filed with the justice, but the justice’s return was defective, the appellant might, on a proper showing, have applied to the district court for an order directing the justice to make an amended return; but, as this was not done, the court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to the district court to dismiss the appeal.

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