Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Miller v. Towns of Beaver & Le Roy, 33 N.W. 559.

16 citing documents.

Schuett v. Powers 180 N.W.2d 253 Minn. 1970
1 The relevant provisions of Rule 4.04, Rules of Civil Procedure, are as follows: “Such service shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction: “(1) When the defendant is a resident individual having departed from the state with intent to defraud his creditors, or to avoid service, or keeps himself concealed therein with like intent * * 2 Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , ; Feikert v. Wilson, 38 Minn. 341 , ; Brown v. St.
State ex rel. Great Northern Railway Co. v. District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District 36 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1949
Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , ; Wilkowske v. Lynch, 124 Minn. 492 , ; Plaster v. County of Aitkin, 135 Minn. 198 , ; Leland v. Heiberg, 156 Minn. 30 , ; Roscoe Black Co. v. Brown, 164 Minn. 440 , ; Fulton v. Okes, 195 Minn. 247 , ; Goodman v. Ancient Order of United Workmen, 211
In Re Judicial Ditch No. 12 36 N.W.2d 336 Minn. 1949
Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , ; Wilkowske v. Lynch, 124 Minn. 492 , 145 N.W.
Jasperson Ex Rel. Drew v. Jacobson 27 N.W.2d 788 Minn. 1947
In Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , , 5 A. S. R. 836, the earlier case of Gemmell v. Rice, 13 Minn. 371 (400), was expressly overruled.
Borgen v. Corty 232 N.W. 512 Minn. 1930
Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194, 197 , , 5 A. S. R. 836.
In Re Peters for Vacation of Part of Third Avenue 203 N.W. 593 Minn. 1925
Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , , 5 Am.
Wagner v. Farmers Co-operative Exchange Co. of Good Thunder 180 N.W. 231 Minn. 1920
Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , , 5 Am.
D'Autremont v. Anderson Iron Co. 116 N.W. 357 Minn. 1908
In Barber *171 v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , , 5 Am.
Holmes v. Loughren 105 N.W. 558 Minn. 1906
Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , , 5 Am.
Swenson v. Board of Supervisors 103 N.W. 895 Minn. 1905
Swenson v. Board of Supervisors 103 N.W. 895 Minn. 1905
t is given to their lands; and another, the strictly local benefit which land, as such, may receive from the opening and construction of.the road, an illustration of which would be drainage, if it should happen to be drained by the road and its ditches, or the filling up of low ground by surplus earth that has to be disposed of in lowering some neighboring hill.” And see Miller v. Town of Beaver, 37 Minn. 203 , ; Whitely v. Mississippi Water P. & Boom Co., 38 Minn. 523 , .
Gilmore v. Lampman 90 N.W. 1113 Minn. 1902
ce by publication has been expressed in the following language: “Constructive service of process is purely a statutory creation, and in derogation of the common law, for which reason the requirements of the statute must be strictly observed, * * * and a failure to follow the statute will render the attempted service fatally defective.” Or, as stated in the case of Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , : “The statute prescribes the means, through a constructive service of the summons, by which a court
Bogart v. Kiene 88 N.W. 748 Minn. 1902
In Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , , it affirmatively appeared that the affidavit was not filed until the date of the entry of the judgment.
Easton v. Childs 69 N.W. 903 Minn. 1897
Barber v. Morris, 87 Minn. 194 , ; Bardwell v. Collins, 44 Minn. 97 , .
Brattland v. Calkins 69 N.W. 699 Minn. 1897
Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , ; Godfrey v. Valentine, 39 Minn. 336 , .
Jewett v. Iowa Land Co. 67 N.W. 639 Minn. 1896
See, also, Barber v. Morris, 37 Minn. 194 , .