Minnesota Supreme Court, 1926

State v. Saha

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 10, 1926 · PER CURIAM.

211 N.W. 469; 169 Minn. 514; 1926 Minn. LEXIS 1491 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

Power, Hario Mulvahill , for appellants. Clifford L. Hilton , Attorney General, James E. Markham , Deputy Attorney General, Mason M. Forbes , County Attorney, and Victor H. Johnson , Assistant County Attorney, for the state.

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 1963, 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

State v. Mastrian (Minn. 1963)

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.

Defendants were arrested, charged with having sold to one Axel Lampi certain intoxicating liquor at the village of Hibbing in St. Louis county on May 8, 1925. A preliminary hearing was had in the municipal court of that village and the defendants were bound over to the grand jury. The next term of the district court convened at Hibbing on June 2, 1925. On June 1, 1925, the assistant county attorney filed an information against the defendants charging them with such offense. They were duly arraigned upon such information, entered a plea of not guilty, and on June 12th were tried and convicted of such offense. Thereafter defendants made a motion to vacate and set aside the information upon the ground that the law of this state had not been complied with in respect to making, presenting and filing of the information, and that therefore the information was void and of no effect. The motion was denied and defendants appealed.

Section 9498, G. S. 1923, specifies the eases in which an appeal to the supreme court may be had in criminal actions. The order denying the defendants’ motion was not appealable. The appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

Dismissed.

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