Henning v. Carlson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $500 upon two promissory notes. From an order, Baldwin, J., granting plaintiff’s motion to strike out the answer as sham, frivolous and interposed for the purpose of delay only, and directing judgment for plaintiff, defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, C.
Appeal from an order striking defendants’ answer as sham, false and frivolous.
The action is to> recover the sum osf $500 on two promissory notes for $250 each, executed by defendants, dated December 20, 1920, and payable 60 days after date. One note was payable to T. A. Graves, the other to T. A. Pasch. The complaint alleges that prior to February 18, 1921, the payee in each note “sold, assigned and indorsed the said promissory note to the plaintiff above named for a valuable consideration.”
The verified answer, among other things, alleges in substance that the notes were given for…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Albrecht v. RathaiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- McWethy v. NorbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- First National Bank v. DenfeldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- State Bank v. MissiaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1920
3Cited by1 opinion
- Chamberlin v. Twin Ports Development Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1935