Minnesota Supreme Court, 1910

Lawyer v. Great Northern Railway Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 15, 1910 · Brown

110 Minn. 414 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Thwing & Rossman and J. W. Reynolds, for appellant., J. A. Murphy, J. D. Armstrong, Thomas R. Benton and W. M. Steele, for respondent.

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 1962, 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

4 later published cases cite this decision.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 857 v. Seem (Minn. 1962)
State v. Lund (Minn. 1928)
Smith v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co. (Minn. 1916)
Harcum v. Benson (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

Brown, J.

This action was commenced in October, 1903, to recover the value-of three cows alleged to have been killed by the negligence of de*415fendant. It came on for trial in December of that year, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff. Thereafter in April, 1904, the trial court made an order, in the due course of procedure, directing judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict, which was duly rendered and entered on April 30, 1904. On February 24, 1910, nearly six years after the entry of the judgment, plaintiff appealed from the order of April, 1904, directing a judgment for defendant. Defendant moves to dismiss the appeal.

It is the contention of plaintiff that inasmuch as no notice of filing the order for judgment was ever given, as provided by section 4364, R. L. 1905, the time to appeal therefrom had not expired when this appeal was taken. That statute provides that an appeal may be taken from an order at any time within thirty days after written notice of the same by the adverse party. While it is true that the time to appeal from an order does not commence to run until written notice of the same is given, it is clear that where, pursuant to an order therefor, judgment is formally entered and thereafter remains of full force and effect beyond the time for appeal therefrom, and. beyond the year in which it may be relieved from under the statutes of mistakes and amendments, the order becomes completely merged in the judgment, and is not thereafter subject to appeal or other attack. Deering v. Johnson, 33 Minn. 97, 22 N. W. 174.

Appeal dismissed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.