Bausman v. Woodman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The complaint in this action, commenced in the district court for Hennepin county, alleges a copartnership between plaintiff and defendant under the following agreement, viz.: “Memorandum of agreement made this 20th day of November, 1882, between A. G. Bausman, party of the first part, and P. M. Woodman, party of the second part, witnesseth: 1st. That they do hereby enter into an agreement for the publication of Woodman’s Court Almanac and Lawyers’ Diary for the years 1883…
Read the full summary
The complaint in this action, commenced in the district court for Hennepin county, alleges a copartnership between plaintiff and defendant under the following agreement, viz.: “Memorandum of agreement made this 20th day of November, 1882, between A. G. Bausman, party of the first part, and P. M. Woodman, party of the second part, witnesseth: 1st. That they do hereby enter into an agreement for the publication of Woodman’s Court Almanac and Lawyers’ Diary for the years 1883 and 1884, for the state of Minnesota. 2nd. Said second party is to furnish all the rights necessary for publication and…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
1. “If a reply to any new matter set up in the answer is insufficient, the defendant may demur thereto, stating the ground thereof.” Laws 1881, c. 44, § 2. A reply is insufficient when, if true, it is in law, for any reason, no answer to the new matter set up in the defendant’s answer. And when it is thus insufficient, it is, under the statute cited, demurrable, although its insufficiency may be such that it could be properly stricken out more unceremoniously on motion.
2. A demurrer reaches back to the first fault in pleading, so that upon demurrer to a reply the defendant may attack the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Greenleaf v. EganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Barker v. KeithSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1865
- Garner v. ReisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879
- Hanscom v. HerrickSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
3Cited by4 opinions
- James H. Bishop & Co. v. TravisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Branton v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Hanson v. ByrnesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Edelbrock v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1926