State v. Torinus
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Washington county, Crosby, J., presiding, striking out, as frivolous, a demurrer to the complaint.
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
Appeal from an order striking out a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint does not (except in the title) describe' the plaintiff’s character. It alleges the making by defendants, and delivery to one Harriman, of a promissory note, and “ that the said note, before maturity, was, for a valuable consideration, duly endorsed, transferred and delivered to this plaintiff, who is now the owner and holder thereof.” The demurrer was on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a- cause of action, and that it appears from it that plaintiff has not legal capacity to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bank of Havana v. . MageeNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- The Phoenix Bank v. . DonnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Powers v. AmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. GilmoreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- La Grange Mill Co. v. BennewitzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Minneapolis Harvester Works v. LibbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1877
- Topping v. ClaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896