Bishop Iron Co. v. Hyde
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 1916, 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.
- Cherveny v. Hemza (Minn. 1916)
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
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.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.