Bishop Iron Co. v. Hyde

Minnesota Supreme Court
Bishop Iron Co. v. Hyde, 72 Minn. 16 (Minn. 1898)
74 N.W. 1016; 1898 Minn. LEXIS 609
Mitchell

Can I rely on this case?

Yes — no negative treatment found

Based on 1 citing opinion

Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.

Bishop Iron Co. v. Hyde

Opinion of the Court

MITCHELL, J.

Every question presented by the first ten assignments of error is covered by the decision on the former appeal (66 Minn. 24, 68 N. W. 95).

By the eleventh assignment of error it is sought to make the point that the judgment entered by the clerk in favor of the respondents, other than the plaintiff, was not the proper one to enter upon the order sustaining their demurrer to the defendants’ cross bill. The error complained of was not that of the court, but that of the clerk, and the remedy is not by appeal from the judgment, but by application to the trial court to have the judgment corrected; and, unless the power of that court has been thus invoked, this court will not consider the question on appeal from the judgment. Scott v. Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 179, 43 N. W. 966.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
BISHOP IRON COMPANY v. THOMAS W. HYDE and Others
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published