Zinsmaster Baking Co. v. Commander Milling Co.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Holt, Justice.
Defendant appeals from the order striking out its answer as sham and frivolous.
To determine the legal sufficiency of the answer it is advisable to give a summary of the issues tendered by the complaint. Plaintiff alleges that during the time referred to in the complaint it was in the business of manufacturing bread and cakes from flour, and de fendant ivas in the business of producing flour from wheat, rye, and other grains which plaintiff bought from time to time. Under the provisions of the agricultural adjustment act of May 12, 1933, 48 St. 31, a processing tax of 30 cents…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. ButlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Lash's Products Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Wayne County Produce Co. v. Duffy-Mott Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Texas Co. v. HaroldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Western Gravel Co. v. M. J. Nolan Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Southern Biscuit Co. v. LloydSupreme Court of Virginia · 1940
- Jasperson Ex Rel. Drew v. JacobsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- Smith v. Sparks Milling CompanyIndiana Supreme Court · 1942
- Kirk v. WelchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
- J. A. Campbell Co. v. Holsum Baking Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1942
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.