Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1918

Krieg v. Bofferding

Krieg v. Bofferding
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 14, 1918
140 Minn. 512; 167 N.W. 1047; 1918 Minn. LEXIS 668 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

John F. Bernhagen, for appellants., Charles B. Elliott and A. L. Eershman, 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 1980, 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

Krieg v. Bofferding

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite 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.

Plaintiff had a verdict in this action, and a stay of proceedings was ordered *513to enable defendants to settle a case and move for a new trial. Tbe stay expired and defendants were in default; no case was settled or motion for a new trial made. Judgment was then entered on the verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Thereafter, at the instance and request of defendant Bofferding, plaintiff consented to a renewal and extension of the stay of proceedings, to the end that defendants might have further time within which to settle a ease and move for a new trial. In consideration of such consent it was further expressly stipulated that, if the motion for a new trial should be made and denied, defendant Bofferding would either pay the judgment or appeal from the order within 48 hours from the date of filing the same in the office of the clerk of the district court. A case was settled and a new trial denied within the time fixed by the agreement of the parties. Defendant Bofferding did not pay the judgment, and failed to appeal from the order within the time agreed upon. Plaintiff moves to dismiss an appeal taken after the expiration of such time. The motion is granted. The stipulation and agreement limiting the time for the appeal, under the facts stated, was valid. State v. Sawyer, 43 Minn. 202, 45 N. W. 155; 2 Standard Enc. Pr. 204. The trial court was without authority by ex parte order to enlarge the time for appeal as agreed upon.

. The appeal of defendant Bofferding is therefore dismissed. The motion is denied as to defendant Haegele.

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