Murphy v. Holterhoff
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 1930, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Brown (Minn. 1930)
- Fred v. Segal (Minn. 1913)
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
From an order discharging a garnishee, and based upon all flies, records and proceedings in the action, plaintiff appeals. The re-turn to this court contains nothing more than copies of the affidavit for garnishment, the garnishee summons, an original and supplemental report of the referee appointed to take the disclosure, an order to show cause why the garnishee shouid not be discharged, the order appealed from, and the notice of, and bond on, appeal, certified to by the clerk of the district court.
The return is clearly defective, under the rule laid down in Hospes v. Northwestern M. & C. Co., 41 Minn. 256, 43 N. W. 180, and frequently applied in later cases. It has not been made to appear affirmatively, either by the certificate of the judge making the order, or by the certificate of the clerk of the court below, that there are before this court all of the files, records and proceedings in the action on which the order was predicated, according to the recital therein found.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.