O'Donnell v. Lesselyoung
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to xeeoveer $75 on a promissory note. From an order, Baldwin, J., granting plaintiff’s motion to strike out the answer as sham and 'frivolous, and to allow plaintiff to enter judgment against defendant, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtDibelu, J.
Action on a promissory note made by the defendant to one Clark and alleged to have been indorsed to the plaintiff for value before maturity. The defendant appeals from an order striking out his answer as sham.
The answer contains a general denial. It admits the making of the note. It alleges a defense good against Clark. It cannot be urged seriously that the answer, so far as it alleges a defense good against Clark, 'is sham. The general denial puts in issue the transfer to the plaintiff, and it specifically alleges that the plaintiff is not the owner of the note, but that Clark is. The real…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Bank of Richards v. SheasgreenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Western Gravel Co. v. M. J. Nolan Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Bronzin Holding Co. v. McGeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Segerstrom v. Holland Piano Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Friend v. FriendSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.