Purvis v. Roholt
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 1913, 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.
- Fred v. Segal (Minn. 1913)
- Radel v. Radel (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
This is an appeal from a judgment on the face of which it appears that the same was ordered upon the pleadings by the trial court. Whether it was justified by a construction of the pleadings contained in the paper book, or based upon stipulations and agreements entered during the trial, which is probable, is not apparent from the return. The appellant has caused no bill of exceptions or settled case to be made, and no proceedings subsequent to the reply are before us in the return; neither does it appear from the certificate of the trial judge that the record contains all that was offered or considered on the motion for judgment, nor does the certificate of the clerk of the district court show that the return contains all the records and files in the case; hence the presumption in favor of the judgment must prevail, and it is affirmed. Hospes v. Northwestern Mnfg. & Car Co., 41 Minn. 256, 43 N. W. 180.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.