Legal Opinion
Bank of Richards v. Sheasgreen
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided November 10, 1922No. 23,086PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHallam, J.
This is an action on a promissory note brought by an indorsee against the makers. Defendants interposed an answer which the court, on motion of plaintiff, struck out as sham. Defendants appeal.
The law on this subject is well settled.
A sham answer may be stricken out on motion. A sham answer is one sufficient on its face, but so clearly and indisputably false that it presents no real issue of fact to be determined by a trial. Bad faith, however, is not necessary. State v. Weber, 96 Minn. 422, 105 N. W. 490, 113 Am. St. 630; Brown-Forman Co. v. Peterson, 101 Minn. 53, 111 N. W. 733; Estate of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State ex rel. Engelhard v. WeberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Sheets v. RamerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Barker v. FosterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
- Towne v. DunnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- O'Donnell v. LesselyoungSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Independent School District v. City of White Bear LakeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
- McGrath v. Northwestern Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
- Western Gravel Co. v. M. J. Nolan Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Bronzin Holding Co. v. McGeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
- Investors Security Co. v. BohanonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.