Legal Opinion

Everett v. O'Leary

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided July 3, 1903No. Nos. 13,495—(163)PublishedCited by 23 opinions

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Le Sueur county, Cadwell, J., sustaining a demurrer to the answer.

1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.

Plaintiff brought an action on a promissory note, with the usual allegations of execution, delivery, and nonpayment, all of which stood admitted by the answer, but defendant therein attempted to set forth *155two counterclaims. To these plaintiff demurred generally as to each, and also severally as to both—

“That the alleged counterclaims * * * did not accrue within six years immediately prior to the commencement -of this action, and are barred by the statute of limitations.”

1. The first counterclaim, as set forth in the answer, -was to the effect that on December 28, 1889, defendant had $1,120.67…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Campbell v. American Fire Insurance Co. of PhiladelphiaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Ganser v. GanserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
  3. P. P. Mast & Co. v. EastonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  2. Cass v. LordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
  3. Rayden Engineering Corp. v. ChurchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1958
  4. Enyart v. Transamerica InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1998
  5. Field v. Missouri Life Ins. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1930

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API