Theodore Hamm Brewing Co. v. Kneise
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.
- Melin v. Stuart (Minn. 1913)
- Wheeler v. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co. (Idaho 1909)
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
Respondent obtained judgment against defendant B. F. Kneise on February 11, 1905, and, execution having been returned unsatisfied, this action was brought to declare void a conveyance of certain real estate executed by Mr. Kneise and his wife to appellant, Kluver, upon the ground that it was for the purpose of defrauding respondent, a creditor. The trial court found that the judgment was entered and that the premises were conveyed as stated, but found that the evidence did not sustain the allegation of the complaint that the conveyance was made with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud respondent in the collection of its claim; that the conveyance was in good' faith so- far as appellant, Kluver, was concerned. Thereupon the parties: entered into a stipulation in writing which set forth that the respondent might make a motion for a new trial on a certain date, upon the ground that the order for judgment was not justified by the evidence and was contrary to law, waiving notice of the motion and appearance, and also stipulating that the trial judge might consider and determine the motion at any time to suit his convenience. The matter having come on before the court upon stipulation, a new trial was granted upon the ground that the decision was not in accordance with the weight of the evidence, from which order the defendant Kluver appealed.
1. The evidence is not manifestly and palpably in favor of the decision, and: the order granting the new trial for insufficiency of the evidence will not be reversed, under the rule of Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 398 (434).
2. Appellant having entered into a stipulation that the motion for a new trial might be brought on before the court upon the ground stated, waiving notice of motion, cannot question the validity of his act by claiming that a motion should have been made, specifying errors.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.