salutary principle in Minnesota

1937In Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410, 412 , 42 N. W. 89, 90 , it was said: “ 'This statute is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle and policy of the common law, which forbids the retrial of issues once determined by a final judgment.’ “Unless plaintiffs bring themselves within § 9405 they have no remedy.” (Italics supplied.) The court in this case cited Avith approval, amongst many other cases, United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, 66 , 25 L. ed. 93, 95, 96, where it was said: “In all these cases, and many others which have been examined, relief has been granted, on

1937In Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410, 412 , 42 N. W. 89, 90 , it was said: “ 'This statute is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle and policy of the common law, which forbids the retrial of issues once determined by a final judgment.’ “Unless plaintiffs bring themselves within § 9405 they have no remedy.” (Italics supplied.) The court in this case cited Avith approval, amongst many other cases, United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, 66 , 25 L. ed. 93, 95, 96, where it was said: “In all these cases, and many others which have been examined, relief has been granted, on

1903In Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , 42 N. W. 89 , this court held that “this statute is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle and policy of the common law, which forbids the retrial of issues once determined by a final judgment,” and that “the statute should not, therefore, be so construed as to extend its operation beyond its. most obvious import.” In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , 43 N. W. 797 , it was held, in the words of GILFILLAN, C.

1903In Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410 , 42 N. W. 89 , this court held that “this statute is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle and policy of the common law, which forbids the retrial of issues once determined by a final judgment,” and that “the statute should not, therefore, be so construed as to extend its operation beyond its. most obvious import.” In Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , 43 N. W. 797 , it was held, in the words of GILFILLAN, C.

1945Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Eickhoff, 63 Minn. 170, 178 , 65 N. W. 351 , 30 L.

1945Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Eickhoff, 63 Minn. 170, 178 , 65 N. W. 351 , 30 L.

1974The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule.” In the case of Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 617 , 80 S. Ct. 1367, 1376 , 4 L. ed. 2d 1435, 1448 (1960), the United States Supreme Court stated: “We observe initially that only the clearest proof could suffice to establish the unconstitutionality of a statute on such a ground.

1974The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule.” In the case of Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 617 , 80 S. Ct. 1367, 1376 , 4 L. ed. 2d 1435, 1448 (1960), the United States Supreme Court stated: “We observe initially that only the clearest proof could suffice to establish the unconstitutionality of a statute on such a ground.

1964Absent all jurisdiction, there is no immunity for a judicial officer, regardless of his station. [Cases cited.]” See, also, Linder v. Foster, 209 Minn. 43 , 295 N. W. 299 , for statement of the immunity rule.

1964Absent all jurisdiction, there is no immunity for a judicial officer, regardless of his station. [Cases cited.]” See, also, Linder v. Foster, 209 Minn. 43 , 295 N. W. 299 , for statement of the immunity rule.

1937In Stewart v. Duncan, 40 Minn. 410, 412 , 42 N. W. 89, 90 , it was said: “ 'This statute is in derogation of the well-established and salutary principle and policy of the common law, which forbids the retrial of issues once determined by a final judgment.’ “Unless plaintiffs bring themselves within § 9405 they have no remedy.” (Italics supplied.) The court in this case cited Avith approval, amongst many other cases, United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, 66 , 25 L. ed. 93, 95, 96, where it was said: “In all these cases, and many others which have been examined, relief has been granted, on

1937“On the other hand, the doctrine is equally well settled that the court will not set aside a judgment because it was founded on a fraudulent instrument, or perjured evidence, or for any matter which Avas actually presented and considered in the judgment assailed. * * We think these decisions establish the doctrine on which we decide the present case; namely, that the acts for lohich *60 a court of equity will on account of fraud set aside or annul a judgment or decree, between the same parties, rendered5 by a court of competent jurisdiction, have relation to frauds, extrinsic or collateral, to

1937“On the other hand, the doctrine is equally well settled that the court will not set aside a judgment because it was founded on a fraudulent instrument, or perjured evidence, or for any matter which Avas actually presented and considered in the judgment assailed. * * We think these decisions establish the doctrine on which we decide the present case; namely, that the acts for lohich *60 a court of equity will on account of fraud set aside or annul a judgment or decree, between the same parties, rendered5 by a court of competent jurisdiction, have relation to frauds, extrinsic or collateral, to

1932Among other cases cited by respondents as sustaining their position may be mentioned McElrath v. McElratli, 120 Minn. *200 380, 139 N. W. 708 , 41 L.R.A.

1925“Statutes are enacted * * * with regard to the existing principles of the common law and of equitable jurisprudence, and should be so construed as to harmonize with the existing body of law, unless the intention to change or repeal it is apparent.” Washburn v. Van Steenwyk, 32 Minn. 336 (349), 20 N. W. 324, 326 .

1925“Statutes are enacted * * * with regard to the existing principles of the common law and of equitable jurisprudence, and should be so construed as to harmonize with the existing body of law, unless the intention to change or repeal it is apparent.” Washburn v. Van Steenwyk, 32 Minn. 336 (349), 20 N. W. 324, 326 .

1918Brackett v. Evans, 1 Cush. 79 ; Malzer v. Schisler, 67 Ore. 356 , 136 Pac. 14 , 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 77.

1918Brackett v. Evans, 1 Cush. 79 ; Malzer v. Schisler, 67 Ore. 356 , 136 Pac. 14 , 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 77.

1915Harrison v. Morrison, 39 Minn. 319 , 40 N. W. 66 ; McCormick Harvesting-Machine Co. v. Wilson, 39 Minn. 467 , 40 N. W. 571 ; Graham v. Savage, 110 Minn. 510 , 126 N. W. 394 , 136 Am.

1915Harrison v. Morrison, 39 Minn. 319 , 40 N. W. 66 ; McCormick Harvesting-Machine Co. v. Wilson, 39 Minn. 467 , 40 N. W. 571 ; Graham v. Savage, 110 Minn. 510 , 126 N. W. 394 , 136 Am.

1915Harrison v. Morrison, 39 Minn. 319 , 40 N. W. 66 ; McCormick Harvesting-Machine Co. v. Wilson, 39 Minn. 467 , 40 N. W. 571 ; Graham v. Savage, 110 Minn. 510 , 126 N. W. 394 , 136 Am.

1915Harrison v. Morrison, 39 Minn. 319 , 40 N. W. 66 ; McCormick Harvesting-Machine Co. v. Wilson, 39 Minn. 467 , 40 N. W. 571 ; Graham v. Savage, 110 Minn. 510 , 126 N. W. 394 , 136 Am.

1915Harrison v. Morrison, 39 Minn. 319 , 40 N. W. 66 ; McCormick Harvesting-Machine Co. v. Wilson, 39 Minn. 467 , 40 N. W. 571 ; Graham v. Savage, 110 Minn. 510 , 126 N. W. 394 , 136 Am.

1915Harrison v. Morrison, 39 Minn. 319 , 40 N. W. 66 ; McCormick Harvesting-Machine Co. v. Wilson, 39 Minn. 467 , 40 N. W. 571 ; Graham v. Savage, 110 Minn. 510 , 126 N. W. 394 , 136 Am.

1908The statute should not, therefore, be so construed as to extend its operation beyond its most obvious import.” And see Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , 43 N. W. 797 ; Watkins v. Landon, 67 Minn. 136 , 69 N. W. 711 ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371, 374 , 74 N. W. 148 ; Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , 94 N. W. 885 .

1908The statute should not, therefore, be so construed as to extend its operation beyond its most obvious import.” And see Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , 43 N. W. 797 ; Watkins v. Landon, 67 Minn. 136 , 69 N. W. 711 ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371, 374 , 74 N. W. 148 ; Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , 94 N. W. 885 .

1908The statute should not, therefore, be so construed as to extend its operation beyond its most obvious import.” And see Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , 43 N. W. 797 ; Watkins v. Landon, 67 Minn. 136 , 69 N. W. 711 ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371, 374 , 74 N. W. 148 ; Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , 94 N. W. 885 .

1908The statute should not, therefore, be so construed as to extend its operation beyond its most obvious import.” And see Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , 43 N. W. 797 ; Watkins v. Landon, 67 Minn. 136 , 69 N. W. 711 ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371, 374 , 74 N. W. 148 ; Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , 94 N. W. 885 .

1908The statute should not, therefore, be so construed as to extend its operation beyond its most obvious import.” And see Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , 43 N. W. 797 ; Watkins v. Landon, 67 Minn. 136 , 69 N. W. 711 ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371, 374 , 74 N. W. 148 ; Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , 94 N. W. 885 .

1908The statute should not, therefore, be so construed as to extend its operation beyond its most obvious import.” And see Hass v. Billings, 42 Minn. 63 , 43 N. W. 797 ; Watkins v. Landon, 67 Minn. 136 , 69 N. W. 711 ; O’Brien v. Larson, 71 Minn. 371, 374 , 74 N. W. 148 ; Moudry v. Witzka, 89 Minn. 300 , 94 N. W. 885 .

1907C.) 17 Fed. 471 , arose upon the application of an informer, who had secured the conviction of smugglers, for a certificate of the value of his services for the information of the secretary of the treasury as required by section 6 of the act of congress of June 22, 1874 ( 18 Stat. 187 , c. 391 [U. S. Comp.