Minnesota Supreme Court, 1935

Hunt v. Deforrest Ward

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 4, 1935 · PER CURIAM.

258 N.W. 145; 193 Minn. 168; 1935 Minn. LEXIS 1072 (North Western Reporter)

Counsel

Albert R. Allen , for appellant. Leo J. Seifert , 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 1939, 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.

Groves v. John Wunder Co. (Minn. 1939)

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

¹ Reported in 258 N.W. 145, 259 N.W. 12. One member of the court being incapacitated by illness, this court stands three to three on the question of whether or not the error committed by the trial court in its charge to the jury was prejudicial to the defendant. Therefore the order of the trial court is affirmed without opinion.

ON APPLICATION FOR REARGUMENT.On February 8, 1935, the following opinion was filed:

Addendum

Rule 13 of this court [190 Minn. xxxix] provides in part:

"Whenever any member of the court is not present at the oral argument of a cause, such cause shall be deemed submitted to such member of the court on the record and briefs therein."

In our opinion this rule does not require that a matter or case must be submitted to all seven justices. If one justice is ill or incapacitated at the time that a particular case is argued, or where there is no argument, at the time that a particular case is considered by the court in closed session, then he is not obliged to *Page 169 take part in the decision thereof, but is at liberty to take no part. If this were not the rule, the business of the court could not well go on if one member became seriously ill or incapacitated. Rule 13 is not mandatory on any particular justice. An absent justice may take part in a decision if he so desires, but he is not required so to do.

Denied.

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