Minnesota Reports Volume 134 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1917 Excerpt: ...the court refused to settle or allow on the ground that the prevailing party is not entitled to propose and settle a case. Thereupon this proceeding was brought for the purpose of compelling the trial court to allow and sign the case so proposed. The proceeding must be dismissed. It is not necessary to determine the correctness of the conclusion of the learned trial court, that the prevailing party is not entitled to propose and have settled a case containing the proceedings had on the trial, and coneedingithat in a particular ease and for special reasons the prevailing party has that right, no reasons are here presented to justify us in commanding the court below to sign and allow the case proposed by plaintiff. If the case so proposed should be allowed, it would serve no useful purpose and in no way aid either party to the appeal. The question presented on the appeal is whether the trial court was right in ordering judgment for plaintiif upon the finding that the sale of the stock to defendants was without consideration. The question whether the court was justified in finding that there was no fraud is not presented by the appeal and cannot be considered. The evidence upon that question is therefore unnecessary to complete the record. The practice in some of the states by which cross-assignments of error are permitted in cases of this kind has never been adopted in this state (8 Standard Enc. Prac. 642, et seq.), and if, in the case at bar, after argument and consideration of the merits of the appeal, we should reach the conclusion that the absence of a consideration for the alleged sale of the stock to defendants was not fatal to the validity of the sale, that would end our consideration of the case and lead to a reversal of the judgment. We would have n...