Cited by

In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63, 67 , , we held that “When an issue is squarely made in a case, so that each party knows what the other will attempt to prove, and neither has a right, or is under any necessity, to depend on the other proving the fact to be as he himself claims it,” a party is not excused in relying upon his adversa

In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , 67 , 43 N.W.

Young v. Lindquist, 126 Minn. 414 , ; Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , ; McElrath v. McElrath, 120 Minn. 380 , , 44 L.R.A.(N.S.)

Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , 43 N. W 797; McElrath v. McElrath, 120 Minn. 380 , ; Murray v. Calkins, 191 Minn. 460 , ; In re Estate of Jordan, 199 Minn. 53 , ; United States v. Throckmorton, 98 *39 U. S. 61, 25 L. ed. 93.

As to § 9405, as construed by this court from the early case of Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , , it has been held *568 that the perjury or fraud must he something that occurs outside of the trial and prevents the other party from participating in the trial or induces him to not appear and present his defense or objections.

Under such decisions as Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , ; Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , ; Murray v. Calkins, 186 Minn. 192 , ; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

A review of our own cases from Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , , to Murray v. Calkins, 186 Minn. 192 , , clearly shows that this court has consistently held that no judgment may be vacated for fraud under § 9405, or otherwise, after the lapse of one year from notice of entry, unless the fraud be such as to affect the jurisdiction of the court or preve

In numerous cases, from Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , , to Murray v. Calkins, 186 Minn. 192 , , we have held that under our statute, 2 Mason Minn. St.

In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , , a leading case in this state, it was held that an action cannot be maintained under said § 9405 of our statute upon “the bare allegation that on an issue of fact squarely made, so that each party knoAvs Avhat the other will attempt to prove, and where neither has a right, or is under- any necessity, t

Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , ; Major v. Leonard, 115 Minn. 439 , ; Marcus v. National Council, 134 Minn. 338 , ; Penniston v. Miller, 156 Minn. 403 , ; Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

It is true that the statute provides for setting aside “any judgment obtained in a court of record by means of perjury, subornation of perjury, or any fraudulent act, practice or representation of the prevailing party.” But as long ago as 1889 in Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , , the statute, for the very convincing reasons stated in that decision, was construed not to apply to a case such as this.

Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , .

Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , ; Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , .

Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , ; Hayward v. Larrabee, 106 Minn. 210 , , 130 Am.

Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , ; Schweinfurter v. Schmahl, supra.

Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , ; Colby v. Colby, 59 Minn. 432 , *385 , 50 Am.

Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , .

The statute should not, therefore, be so construed as to extend its operation beyond its most obvious import.” And see Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , ; Watkins v. Landon, 67 Minn. 136 , ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371, 374 , ; Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , .

Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , Wilkins v. Sherwood, 55 Minn. 154 , ; Colby v. Colby, 59 Minn. 432 , ; 50 Am.

most obvious import.” In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , , it was held, in the words of GILFILLAN, C. J., in construing this statute, that “when an issue is squarely made in a case, so that each party knows what the other will attempt to prove, and neither has a right, or is under any necessity, to depend on the other proving the fact to be as he himself clai

The cases of Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , , and Colby v. Colby, 59 Minn. 432 , , show that the court will construe this section strictly.

In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , , the scope and purpose of the statute were considered more at length, and it was then said that no general rule could be laid down by which to determine what cases came within it; that it was safer to determine from time to time, as each case may arise, whether the circumstances-bring it within what th

It was held in Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , ( ,) that where *436 the pleadings disclose the fact to be proved so that the opposite party knows what the pleader will attempt to prove, and “is not under any necessity to depend on the other to prove the fact as he himself claims it,” an action will not lie under the statute to set aside a judgment p

Buck, J. We think the decision of this court in the action of Haas v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , ( 43 N. W. Rep.