Case ID: minn_74/html/0425-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PLYMOUTH CLOTHING HOUSE v. FRANK A. SEYMOUR and Another.
    December 2, 1898.
    No. 11,504.
    Court Rules — Motion for Dismissal — Notice to File Return.
    Court rule 4 does not affect the right of respondent under rule 14 to move for dismissal of an appeal for noneompliance with court rule 11. [Reporter.]
    In the district court for Ramsey county plaintiff filed its petition against defendants, as the receivers of the Bank of Minnesota. The petition was denied on June 10, 1898. The motion of plaintiff for a new trial was also denied on July 27, 1898, and on the same day plaintiff appealed from the order denying a new trial. A motion in this court to dismiss the appeal was made on December 2, 1898, on the ground that no return upon the appeal had been filed and no paper book or points and authorities of appellant had been filed.
    Motion granted.
    
      Nelson é Bramhall, for appellant.
    
      Young & LigMner, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal herein under rule 14 for noncompliance with rule 11 (60 Minn. vi), as to the service of paper book and points and authorities. Noncompliance with this rule is admitted, but the appellant claims that the motion must be denied because the respondent has not served a written notice upon its attorneys requiring the return to be made, as provided by rule 4.

We have repeatedly decided and announced the decision from the bench that rule 4 was intended to speed the prosecution of appeals by permitting the respondent to secure a dismissal of the appeal for a failure to file the return within the time limited, whether the court be in session or not, and that it in no manner affects the right of the respondent to move for a dismissal of the appeal for noncompliance with rule 11.

Appeal dismissed.