Colter v. Greenhagen
Supreme Court of Minnesota
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP RAMSEY COUNTY. The following aré tbe points and authorities relied on by the Counsel for the Apellant: First. — That said District Court erred in its order of December 16th, 1858, ordering the Defendant within ten days to amend said amended answer, and in default thereof that the same be stricken out.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP RAMSEY COUNTY. The following aré tbe points and authorities relied on by the Counsel for the Apellant: First. — That said District Court erred in its order of December 16th, 1858, ordering the Defendant within ten days to amend said amended answer, and in default thereof that the same be stricken out. Second. — That said Court manifestly erred in holding the amended answer of Defendant uncertain as to time, when time was in no sense material. That the allegation that Plaintiff and Defendant, about two weeks before the maturity of said note, made an agreement…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
— Flandrau, J.
This is a question of pleading. The action is upon a promissory note for $740, payable in ninety days, with interest after maturity at three per cent, per month. The complaint admits a payment at the maturity of tiie note of $240. The Defendant answered, setting up an agreement that the note should be made payable at “ Ullman’s, on Jackson street in the city of St. Paul,” and that he had made arrangements and been ready to pay the same,' but it *130had not been presented, and that the sum of five hundred dollars was then due on the note, which corresponds with the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Murphy v. Schuster Springs Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Siebert v. QuesnelSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896