Case ID: minn_51/html/0252-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Collins, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

August Finke vs. W. H. Lukensmeyer.
    Submitted on briefs Oct. 14, 1892.
    Decided Nov. 11, 1892.
    Appeal from Justice of the Peace.
    Decisions in former cases in this court followed, as to the effect of an appeal, on questions of both law and fact, from a judgment of a justice of the peace.
    Appeal by defendant, W. H. Lukensmeyer, from a judgment of the District Court of Nobles County, P. E. Brown, J., entered May 16, 1892.
    August Finke brought this action against the defendant before O. W. Freeman, a Justice of the Peace in Nobles County. The summons was served and the defendant appeared in person on the return day. The plaintiff filed a written complaint on that day, December 1, 1891, and the case was by consent adjourned to December 8, 1891. On that day plaintiff appeared and filed an amended complaint, changing his causes of action somewhat from those alleged in his original complaint. Defendant did not appear, and the ease was tried, the justice giving judgment for the plaintiff. From this judgment, the defendant appealed to the District Court on questions of both law and fact. On the call of the case for trial, defendant moved to dismiss on the ground of want of jurisdiction in the justice to try the case and render judgment. The motion was denied and the case was tried, defendant taking no further part. Findings were made, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff. From this judgment defendant appeals.
    
      Daniel Rohrer, for appellant.
    
      L. S. Nelson, for respondent.
   Collins, J.

The judgment appealed from will have to be affirmed. On questions of both law and fact, defendant appealed to the district court from a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace. It was not material in the appellate court to consider whether the judgment appealed from was valid or unauthorized, for the justice had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter. The appeal on both law and fact brought the case to the district court for trial de novo upon its merits. This has been held repeatedly here. See Bingham v. Stewart, 14 Minn. 214, (Gil. 153;) Craighead v. Martin, 25 Minn. 41; Seurer v. Horst, 31 Minn. 479, (18 N. W. Rep. 283;) Welter v. Nokken, 38 Minn. 376, (37 N. W. Rep. 947;) McOmber v. Balow, 40 Minn. 388, (42 N. W. Rep. 83.)

Judgment affirmed.

(Opinion published 53 N. W. Rep. 546.)