Towne v. Dunn
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $200 for services. The answer, on plaintiff’s motion, was stricken out as sham and frivolous, and' judgment ordered in favor of plaintiff for the amount demanded, Montgomery, J. Defendant’s motion that plaintiff show cause why he should not be allowed to file an amended answer was denied, C. L. Smith, J. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the municipal court *144of the city of Minneapolis. The errors assigned are that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to strike out the answer on the ground that it was sham and frivolous, and in denying defendant’s motion to amend his answer.
The complaint, which was duly verified by the plaintiff, alleged that she was engaged in the business of giving treatment as a masseuse, and that between August 1 and December 1, 1908, she performed for the defendant, at his special request, labor and services as such masseuse, which were of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State ex rel. Engelhard v. WeberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- First National Bank v. LangSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Estate of Beckwith v. Golden Rule Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Hertz v. HartmannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
- Thul v. OchsenreiterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sheets v. RamerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Bank of Richards v. SheasgreenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Segerstrom v. Holland Piano Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Friend v. FriendSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Investors Security Co. v. BohanonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.