Case ID: minn_55/html/0154-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Buck, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert L. Wilsins vs. William G. Sherwood.
    Submitted on briefs by appellant, argued by respondent, Oct. 24, 1893.
    Affirmed Oct. 27, 1893.
    No. 8289.
    Action to set aside a judgment obtained by perjury.
    The decision of this court in Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63, followed.
    Appeal by plaintiff, R. L. Wilkins, from an order of the District Court of St. Louis County, Josiah D. Ensign, J., made February M 3 6, 1893, sustaining a demurrer to his complaint.
    The complaint stated that the defendant, William C. Sherwood, on June 3, 1891, obtained judgment in the District Court of St. Louis County against Wilkins for $7,684.78 damages for breach of the covenants in a deed he made December 15, 1888, to Carroll M. Mauseau of Lot thirty eight (38) on West First Street in Duluth Proper, First Division. That he, Wilkins, answered in that action- and on the trial of the issues Sherwood was a witness in his own behalf and falsely testified that he paid Wilkins divers sums of money to apply upon the purchase price of the lot, which were-never in fact paid, and also falsely testified that Wilkins gave bim receipts for the payments, which receipts he produced, but they were false and were forged by Sherwood. That he, Wilkins, was surprised and unable seasonably to procure the evidence which he now has to disprove such payments and counteract the fraud, forgery and perjury by which the amount of that judgment was. greatly increased. The prayer of the present complainant is that the judgment be set aside and that he, Wilkins, have such other relief as to the Court should seem meet. The facts in the former-.action appear in Shenvoocl v. Wilkins, 50 Minn. 152. The defend^ . ant demurred to this complaint. The demurrer was sustained and plaintiff appeals.
    (Opinion published 56 N. W. Rep. 591.)
    
      W. Hammons, for appellant.
    
      W. B. Phelps, F. N. Crosby and S. T. é Wm. Harrison, for respondent.
   Buck, J.

We think the decision of this court in the action of Haas v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63, (43 N. W. Rep. 797,) controls the questions raised by the demurrer in this case, and the doctrine there' stated should be considered as the settled law in regard to that class of cases. The complaint in this action does not fully set' out the material facts necessary in a complaint in an action brought under 1878 G. S. ch. 66, § 285, but we place our decision upon the rules of law as laid down in Hass v. Billings.

The order of the court below sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s complaint is affirmed.