Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Lockway v. Modern Woodmen of America, 133 N.W. 398.

25 citing documents.

Nelson v. Glenwood Hills Hospitals, Inc. 62 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1953
Nelson v. Glenwood Hills Hospitals, Inc. 62 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 1953
Co. v. Duclos, 131 Minn. 173 , ; Flanery v. Kusha, 143 Minn. 308 , , 6 A. L. R. 838; Griffin v. Faribault F. & A. Assn. 203 Minn. 97 , ; Lockway v. Modern Woodmen, 116 Minn. 115 , , Ann. Cas.
Tharp v. Tharp 36 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1949
Tharp v. Tharp 36 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1949
Lockway v. Modern Woodmen, 116 Minn. 115 , , Ann. Cas.
Griffin v. Faribault Fair & Agricultural Ass'n 280 N.W. 7 Minn. 1938
Griffin v. Faribault Fair & Agricultural Ass'n 280 N.W. 7 Minn. 1938
Co. v. Kaufert, 86 Minn. 13 , ; Lockway v. Modern Woodmen of America, 116 Minn. 115 , , Ann. Cas.
Schultz v. Oldenburg 277 N.W. 918 Minn. 1938
Schultz v. Oldenburg 277 N.W. 918 Minn. 1938
There the defect in the summons was held fatal to jurisdiction because the purpose of the service of summons to give defendant notice “fails if the notice given is to appear in a court other than the one wherein the action is pending.” *243 It was held in Lockway v. Modern Woodmen, 116 Minn. 115 , , Ann. Cas.
Strom v. Lindstrom 275 N.W. 833 Minn. 1937
Melvey v. Bowman 212 N.W. 194 Minn. 1927
Melvey v. Bowman 212 N.W. 194 Minn. 1927
Bank v. Coon, 143 Minn. 262 , ; Lockway v. Modern Woodmen, 116 Minn. 115 , 133 * Ann. Cas.
Dressel v. Brill 209 N.W. 868 Minn. 1926
Dressel v. Brill 209 N.W. 868 Minn. 1926
Lockway v. Modern Woodmen, 116 Minn. 115 , , Ann. Cas.
Francis v. Knerr 182 N.W. 988 Minn. 1921
Francis v. Knerr 182 N.W. 988 Minn. 1921
It is sufficient in this respect if it clearly informs the defendant that it is intended for him, and requires him to answer the complaint.” In Lockway v. Modern Woodmen of America, 116 Minn. 115 , , Ann. Cas.
Flanery v. Kusha 173 N.W. 652 Minn. 1919
Flanery v. Kusha 173 N.W. 652 Minn. 1919
Lockway v. Modern Woodmen, 116 Minn. 115 , , Ann. Cas.
Farmers Implement Co. v. Sandberg 157 N.W. 642 Minn. 1916
Farmers Implement Co. v. Sandberg 157 N.W. 642 Minn. 1916
By G. S. 1913, § 7783 (E. L. 1905, § 4157), the court is given power to amend any “pleading, process or proceedings,” etc. In Lockway v. Modern Woodmen of America, 116 Minn. 115 , , Ann. Cas.
Morrison County Lumber Co. v. Duclos 154 N.W. 952 Minn. 1915
Morrison County Lumber Co. v. Duclos 154 N.W. 952 Minn. 1915
Lockway v. Modern Woodmen of America, 116 Minn. 115 , , Ann. Cas.
Motel Oxmon v. Modern Woodmen of America 145 N.W. 171 Minn. 1914
Motel Oxmon v. Modern Woodmen of America 145 N.W. 171 Minn. 1914
Plaintiff relies upon Lockway v. Modern Woodmen of America, 116 Minn. 115 , , to support her contention that the judgment is valid.
Spencer v. Court of Honor 139 N.W. 815 Minn. 1913
Spencer v. Court of Honor 139 N.W. 815 Minn. 1913
What was said in the case of Lockway v. Modern Woodmen, 116 Minn. 115 , , upon the question of the constitutionality of the statute, was with reference to the contention there made that the summons in that action was utterly void, because it required defendant to answer within 20 days, instead of 30 days, as provided by the statute.