Brady v. Burch
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 1938, 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.
- Griffin v. Faribault Fair & Agricultural Ass'n (Minn. 1938)
- Schultz v. Oldenburg (Minn. 1938)
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
Appeal from an order vacating a judgment taken by default.
The action was one to foreclose a conditional sales contract on an automobile. It was attempted to be commenced by service of summons with complaint attached. ■ The complaint by its caption correctly laid the venue in the district court of Hennepin county, but the summons incorrectly put the venue in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis. Defendant did not appear, so- plaintiff submitted his proof and took judgment by default.
The order below vacated the judgment because it was considered, correctly we think, that the defect in the summons >vas fatal to jurisdiction. In Sievert v. Selvig, 175 Minn. 597, 222 N. W. 281, *441 it was held that a similar defect in a complaint was only an irregularity. But the reasoning used and authorities cited show that such a defect in a summons is something more than a mere irregularity. The notice which it is the function of the summons to give is prerequisite to jurisdiction. The purpose utterly fails if the notice given is to appear in a court other than the one wherein the action is pending. To say that a summons putting the venue in one court confers jurisdiction upon another court not named is to assert what is obviously impossible.
There is nothing in the argument that the correctly captioned complaint cured the fatally defective summons. One indicated one court, and the other another court as the one wherein defendant was to appear and ansAver. His Avas the right to appear even though he did not answer. G. g. 1923 (2 Mason, 1927) § 9239. How was he to know which Avas the correct tribunal? He was entitled to that notice and did not get it.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.