Wakefield v. Spencer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
BRROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF SCOTT COUNTY. Points and Authorities of Plaintiff in Error. This action was brought by the Plaintiff below upon three promissory notes. Defendant below answered, setting up a counter-claim for labor and service done and performed by Defendant tor Plaintiff, as his agent, prior to the making of two of the notes, alleging the value thereof to be more than the amount claimed by Plaintiff.
Read the full summary
BRROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF SCOTT COUNTY. Points and Authorities of Plaintiff in Error. This action was brought by the Plaintiff below upon three promissory notes. Defendant below answered, setting up a counter-claim for labor and service done and performed by Defendant tor Plaintiff, as his agent, prior to the making of two of the notes, alleging the value thereof to be more than the amount claimed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff replied, 1st, by denying “ each and every allegation of new matter set forth in said answer.” 2nd, by setting up a settlement and liquidation of the counter-claim in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Oowt't.
Elamdrau, J.
The order striking out the demurrer to the reply cannot be reviewed on writ of error. Coit vs. Waples & Zirkle, 1 M. R., 134. If the Defendant desired to review any order made in the progress of the case prior to judgment, he should have appealed. In an appeal from a judgment, this Court may review any intermediate order involving the merits, and necessarily affecting thejudg-*380anent. Comp. Stats., 621, sec. 7. A writ of error does not reach such orders.
Was the Plaintiff entitled to judgment on the pleadings ? The complaint is upon three promissory notes, the last two…
2Cited by1 opinion
- McArdle v. McArdleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1866