Looney v. Drometer
Cited by
- Howells v. McKibben 281 N.W.2d 154 Minn. 1979
- State Ex Rel. Nelson v. Nelson 216 N.W.2d 140 Minn. 1974
- Henderson v. Bjork Monument Co. Inc. 24 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 1946
- Kaiser v. Butchart 274 N.W. 680 Minn. 1937
- Aichele Bros. Inc. v. Skoglund 260 N.W. 290 Minn. 1935
- Barsness v. Tiegen 238 N.W. 161 Minn. 1931
- Olesen v. Retzlaff 238 N.W. 12 Minn. 1931
- Johnson v. Floan 237 N.W. 23 Minn. 1931
- Johnson v. Larson 224 N.W. 466 Minn. 1929
- Frederick v. McRae 196 N.W. 270 Minn. 1923
- Sullivan v. Minneapolis & Rainy River Railway Co. 142 N.W. 3 Minn. 1913
- Meshbesher v. Channellene Oil & Manufacturing Co. 119 N.W. 428 Minn. 1909
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Goodnow v. Board of Commissioners 11 Minn. 31
- Tyler v. Hanscom 8 N.W. 825
- Spencer v. Tozer 15 Minn. 146
- 28 Minn. 4 not in our corpus
- 15 Minn. 151 not in our corpus
- 11 Minn. 42 not in our corpus
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. The district court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it did not appear that the notice of appeal, with proof of service, was ever filed with the justice as required by statute. This is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the al *506 lowance of an appeal that cannot be dispensed with. Without it there is no appeal. Marsile v. Milwaukee, 28 Minn. 4 ; Larrabee v. Morrison, 15 Minn. 151 (196). There is no presumption that the notice of appeal was filed. Every jurisdictional fact must appear in the return of the justice. McFarland v. Butler, 11 Minn. 42 (72); Marsile v. Milwaukee, supra. If the notice of appeal was in fact filed with the justice, but the justice’s return was defective, the appellant might, on a proper showing, have applied to the district court for an order directing the justice to make an amended return; but, as this was not done, the court should have granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to the district court to dismiss the appeal.