Hale v. Dressen
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in tbe district court for Hennepin county by Richard W. Hale and Henry W. Bullard, as trustees of tbe estate of Alfred W. Haven, for tbe cancellation of a certain agreement or release, and for tbe recovery óf judgment against defendant David C. Bell Investment Company for $449 and interest. From an order, Lancaster, J., denying tbe application of said defendant for leave to file an answer, said defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
START, O. J.
The defendant the David 0. Bell Investment Company demurred to tbe complaint herein, which was sustained. The plaintiffs appealed, and tbe order was reversed by this court. Hale v. Dressen, 73 Minn. 277, 76 N. W. 31. Tbe remittitur was sent down, and there*184upon the investment company moved the district court for leave to answer, which was denied on the ground that the proposed answer did not state facts constituting a defense; and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion.
No question of discretion on the part of the trial court is involved in the appeal, and the sole…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Christmas v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Fisher v. New-York Common PleasNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Plymouth Cordage Co. v. SeymourSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- D. M. Osborne & Co. v. GulliksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Farmers' National Bank v. BackusSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Burns v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943
- O'NEIL v. DuxSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Edwards v. Svea Fire & Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
- O'Connor v. EinfeldtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
- Selover v. SeloverSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938