Case Name: DOLPHUS A. DUNN and Another v. JESSIE M. LAWRENCE and Another
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1908-12-18
Citations: 106 Minn. 541
Docket Number: Nos. 16,007—(129)
Parties: DOLPHUS A. DUNN and Another v. JESSIE M. LAWRENCE and Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 541–541

Head Matter:
DOLPHUS A. DUNN and Another v. JESSIE M. LAWRENCE and Another.
December 18, 1908.
Nos. 16,007—(129).
Action in the district court for Itasca county to reform a deed. Pursuant to stipulation between the parties the court ordered judgment to be entered in accordance therewith, and judgment in favor of defendants was so entered on October 13, 1906, by which plaintiffs were required to convey to defendant William E. Neal the premises described in the decree, and in case of failure so to convey, the record of a certified copy of the decree was to have the effect of a conveyance. On March 17, 1908, the Marshall H. Coolidge Company moved to set aside this judgment and allow it as a purchaser pendente lite to answer and defend the action and file a complaint in intervention. It alleged that the stipulation was collusive and operated as a fraud on it. On the application of the plaintiffs a temporary order was issued restraining defendants from trespassing on the premises. Plaintiffs moved to set aside the judgment and be allowed to defend against a counterclaim 'in the action on the ground that the judgment was entered by accident and surprise and through collusion of the person .claiming to act as their attorney. Prom the order denying the motions, MeClenahan, J., intervener appealed.
Affirmed.
B. B. Bryberg&r, for appellant.
Alfred L. Timing and Timing é Mossrnm, for respondents.
Reported in 118 N. W. 1118.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this case judgment was entered in October, 1906 Information of fraud charged came to the knowledge of plaintiffs, through their counsel, in May or June, 1907. Application was made to open the judgment in March, 1908. The trial court refused to vacate the judgment. It would serve no useful purpose to here state or discuss the details of the facts upon which plaintiffs relied. The matter of opening the judgment was in the sound discretion of the trial court Abuse of that discretion does not appear.
Affirmed.