Cited by

Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , , or has an independent claim he seeks to assert without being named as a party.

3 Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , ; Bloom v. American Express Co. 222 Minn. 249 , 23 N. W. (2d) 570 ; Braufman v. Hart Publication, Inc. 234 Minn. 343 , 48 N. W. (2d) 546 , 25 A. L. R. (2d) 1030; 6 Dunnell, Dig.

Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , 42 N.W.

Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , , or has an independent claim he seeks to assert without being named as a party.

It is a rule to be applied cautiously but nevertheless un-falteringly whenever valuable rights themselves need protection, that a statute in derogation of a well established and salutary-principle of the common law, or of equity, will not be extended by construction ‘beyond its most obvious import.’ Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , .

Defendant relies upon Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , , as authority for its position here.

Since Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , , the rule has been established that only those who have participated in the proceedings so as to become parties can regard themselves as “aggrieved” within § 9405.

In Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410, 412 , , it was said: “ 'This statute is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle and policy of the common law, which forbids the retrial of issues once determined by a final judgment.’ “Unless plaintiffs bring themselves within § 9405 they have no remedy.” (Italics supplied.)

Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , .

From Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , , and down, including such cases as Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , ; Major v. Leonard, 115 Minn. 439 , ; Penniston v. Miller, 156 Minn. 403 , , it is clear that with the findings supported it would be impossible that this action would lie under 2 Mason Minn. St.

In Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410, 412 , , it was said: “This statute is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle and policy of the common law, which forbids the retrial of issues once determined by a final judgment.” Unless plaintiffs bring themselves within § 9405 they have no remedy.

It is a rule to be applied cautiously but nevertheless unfalteringly whenever valuable rights themselves need protection, that a statute in derogation of a well established and salutary principle of the common law, or of equity, will not be extended by construction “beyond its most obvious import.” Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , .

Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , , or has an independent claim he seeks to assert without being named as a party.

Hayward v. Larrabee, 106 Minn. 210 , ; Cremer v. Michelet, 114 Minn. 454 , ; Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , .

In Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410, 412 , , Dickinson, J., said: “This statute is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle and policy of the common law, which forbids the retrial of issues once determined by a final judgment.

In Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , , this court held that “this statute is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle and policy of the common law, which forbids the retrial of issues once determined by a final judgment,” and that “the statute should not, *302 therefore, be so construed as to extend its operation beyond

In Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , , it was said that, as it is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle of the common law which forbids the retrial of an issue once determined by a final judgment, it must not be construed so as to extend its operation beyond its most obvious import.

In Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , ( 42 N. W. Rep.