Case Name: STATE EX REL. JOHN M. REES v. MAY SCHULTZ
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1915-11-12
Citations: 131 Minn. 488
Docket Number: Nos. 19,468—(19)
Parties: STATE EX REL. JOHN M. REES v. MAY SCHULTZ.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
STATE EX REL. JOHN M. REES v. MAY SCHULTZ.
November 12, 1915.
Nos. 19,468—(19).
Vacating judgment — discretion of court.
Proceeding to abate a nuisance under Laws 1913, p. 815, c. 562. It was tried about two months after service of the restraining order. Defendant made no appearance and judgment was thereafter entered. Ten days later defendant moved to vacate the judgment. Held: The motion was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. On the facts presented by the record, the court did not abuse its discretion. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Hennepin county by the county attorney against May Schultz and the Minnesota Loan & Trust Company to abate a nuisance maintained by said defendant Schultz upon the premises described, to enjoin defendants from further use of the premises, for a sale of the furniture and movable property and to impose the statutory penalty of $300. The matter was heard before Jelley, X, who made findings and ordered judgment imposing a penalty of $300 against defendant Schultz, ordering a sale of the movable property and directing that the premises be restored to the possession of the defendant company against which the action was dismissed'. From an order, Molyneaux, X, denying her motion to set aside the judgment and allowing her to answer, defendant Schultz appealed.
Affirmed.
Robertson & Bonner, for appellant.
John M. Rees, County Attorney, and Knut T. Dahlen, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent.
Reported in 154 N. W. 659.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Proceeding against May Schultz, and others, under the provisions of Laws 1913, p. 815, c. 562, to abate a nuisance. The summons, complaint, an order to show cause why a temporary injunction should not be issued and a restraining order were served on appellant personally April 20, 1915. She failed to appear or answer.
The cause was brought on for trial June 18, 1915. Findings were made and filed June 28, 1915, and judgment entered and docketed June 29, 1915. A writ of execution was issued and a levy made.
July 9, 1915, May Schultz, upon a proposed answer and affidavits, and upon all the records, files and proceedings in the case, moved to vacate the judgment and for leave to answer. The matter was heard on July 14, 1915, and resulted in an order denying the motion, from which order she appeals.
The motion was addressed to the discretion of the trial court. We hold that, on the facts presented by the record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making the order appealed from.
Order affirmed.