Bardwell-Robinson Co. v. Brown
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants, Thomas M. Brown and Charles C. Shapleigh, from an order of the District Court of Marshall County, Frank Ives, J., made August 10, 1893, striking out their answer as sham. The plaintiff, Bardwell-Bobinson Company, is a corporation dealing in lumber at Minneapolis.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants, Thomas M. Brown and Charles C. Shapleigh, from an order of the District Court of Marshall County, Frank Ives, J., made August 10, 1893, striking out their answer as sham. The plaintiff, Bardwell-Bobinson Company, is a corporation dealing in lumber at Minneapolis. The defendants, Thomas M. Brown and Charles C. Shapleigh are copartners and retail dealers in lumber at Stephen and at Hallock under the firm name of T. M. Brown & Co. This firm bought lumber of plaintiff and on December 28, 1892, gave plaintiff on account their note signed with the firm name for $500 and…
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
Plaintiff brought an action against the three defendants, alleging that they were partners, and that they made to plaintiff the note in suit. The defendants answered with a general denial. The plaintiff made a motion to strike out the answer as sham, and presented affidavits which furnished very strong proof that defendants Brown and Charles C. Shapleigh were partners, and made and delivered the note to plaintiff. The defendants op*142posed the motion only with affidavits that the defendant Thomas C. Shapleigh never was a partner in the firm. The court below struck out the answer as to Brown and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- James H. Bishop & Co. v. Buckeye Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
3Cited by4 opinions
- Schmidt v. Agricultural Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
- Minneapolis Holding Co. v. MatchanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- James H. Bishop & Co. v. Buckeye Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894
- Schmidt v. Agricultural InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934