Court Opinion

ID: 9699969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:01:27.315093+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:01.617927
License: Public Domain

Knutson, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result. It does seem to me, however, that an anomalous situation has been created by the adoption of L. 1955, c. 614, amending Minn. St. 542.09, and leaving § 542.10 as it was prior to the amendment. As these sections are construed in Donovan v. Dixon, 257 Minn. 4, 99 N. W. (2d) 783, it now follows that if an action is *124commenced against one defendant, or multiple defendants all living in the same county, they have no right to demand a change of venue if .some part of the action arose in the county in which it was commenced. However, if such action is brought against multiple defendants and one of them happens to live in a different county from the others, they may demand a change of venue to that county upon which the majority agree. As applied to this case, inasmuch as both defendants have their residence in Ramsey County, they can do nothing. However, if one of the defendants had its residence in Ramsey County and the other in Hennepin County, they could unite in a demand for a change of venue to either county. It does not .seem right to me that multiple defendants should have a right to select the place of trial simply because they happen to live in different counties when that right is denied to multiple defendants living in the same county or to a single defendant. However, we are controlled by the statute as it is, and if this anomaly is to be corrected, it is up to the legislature to do so.
Dell, Chief Justice (concurring specially).
I also concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Knutson.
Loevinger, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Knutson as well as in the opinion of the court.