Fagerstrom v. Rappaport

Defendant, Edward Rappaport, appeals from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor. The single question presented by the appeal is: Did the court err in striking as sham and irrelevant the separate answer of appellant?

The complaint alleged that upon the land owned by appellant in Minneapolis, Minnesota, he, by his contractor, erected a building, and that plaintiff, as subcontractor of the contractor, furnished labor and material in the construction thereof; that the first item was furnished August 9, 1926, and the last item November 1, 1926; that on November 30, 1926, there was a balance due therefor…