Minnesota Supreme Court, 1942

Hanson v. Western Surety Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 30, 1942 · PER CURIAM.

6 N.W.2d 43; 213 Minn. 182; 1942 Minn. LEXIS 501 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Faegre Benson, Paul J. McGough , and Everett A. Drake , for relators. Roy A. Hendrickson and Sexton, Mordaunt, Kennedy Carroll , for respondents.

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 1942, 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 Ex Rel. Gallagher v. Erickson (Minn. 1942)

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.

This action was originally brought in Kandiyohi county against the Western Surety Company of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, as sole defendant, summons and complaint being served upon it on the 25th of June 1912. September 16, 1912, Harvey Hageman asked to be made a defendant, and an order was made to that effect September 17, 1912. Hageman immediately made a demand for change of venue to Stearns county, the place of his residence. The clerk of district court of Kandiyohi county, where the action was commenced, refused to transfer the file, and the defendants now seek a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling him to do so.

The Western Surety Company is a foreign corporation, and the action commenced against it alone was properly laid in Kandiyohi county, where it was commenced. Change of venue as a matter of right rests entirely upon the statute. Minn. St. 1941, § 512.10 (Mason SC 1927, § 9215). That section makes the only provision for change of venue as a matter of right and applies only to actions where the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county. Such being the case, it has no application where at the time the action is commenced it is brought in the proper county, as it was here. The case is controlled by Healy v. Mathews, 108 Minn. 125, 121 N. W. 428.

Alternative writ of mandamus discharged and application for peremptory writ denied.

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