Estate of Beckwith v. Golden Rule Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Marshall county to recover $311.20 for goods sold and delivered. From an order, Grindeland, J., striking out the answer of defendant as sham and false and directing judgment for plaintiff as for want of an answer, defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, J.
The complaint states that between the sixth day of May and the first of October, 1907, inclusive, respondent sold and delivered to appellant, at its special instance and request, goods, wares, and merchandise of the reasonable and agreed price of $311.20; that no part of the account had been paid; and judgment was demanded for *90that amount. The answer admitted these allegations; stated that during all of the time mentioned in the complaint respondent was a foreign corporation, organized and .existing under the laws of the state of Michigan; and alleged, on information and belief, that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State ex rel. Engelhard v. WeberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
- Brown-Forman Co. v. PetersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
3Cited by5 opinions
- Sheets v. RamerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Bank of Richards v. SheasgreenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
- Towne v. DunnSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1912
- J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. BargabosSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Friend v. FriendSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924