Minnesota Supreme Court, 1917

Evangelical Lutheran Hospital Ass'n v. Schultz

Evangelical Lutheran Hospital Ass'n v. Schultz
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 23, 1917
136 Minn. 459; 161 N.W. 1054; 1917 Minn. LEXIS 599 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

C. O. Dailey, for appellant., H. L. & J. W. Schmitt, 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 1928, 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

Evangelical Lutheran Hospital Ass'n v. Schultz

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

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

Per Curiam.

The summons and complaint in this action to recover for board, lodging, care and nursing ‘furnished by plaintiff hospital association to one Lau at the request of defendant named the court in which the action was brought as the municipal court of the city of Mankato. Defendant was a resident of Waseca county, and the summons and complaint were served upon him in that county. He did not answer or appear. Counsel for plaintiff then proceeded to take judgment by default in the district court for the county of Blue Earth. This appeal is -by plaintiff from an order of that court vacating and setting aside this judgment on a motion to that end made by defendant.

The order was right. The action was brought in the municipal court of Mankato, and no jurisdiction of the person of defendant was acquired by the service upon him in Waseca county. It is plain that the judgment entered in the ‘district court was a nullity, as the action was not in that court.

Order affirmed.

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