cl-8011452 Precedential Affirmed Processed

Pratt v. Sparkman

Minnesota Supreme Court · Filed February 4, 1890 · 44 N.W. 663

Cited by

Piletich v. Deretich 328 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 1982
Veltman v. DeBoer 118 N.W.2d 808 Minn. 1962
Gethsemane Lutheran Church v. Zacho 92 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 1958
Protestant Reformed Church of Edgerton v. Tempelman 81 N.W.2d 839 Minn. 1957
Blauert v. Schupmann 63 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 1954
Alansky v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 28 N.W.2d 181 Minn. 1947
State v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. 25 N.W.2d 294 Minn. 1946
Russian-Serbian Holy Trinity Orthodox Church v. Kulik 279 N.W. 364 Minn. 1938
Mattson v. Saastamoinen 209 N.W. 648 Minn. 1926

Opinion text

Gileillan, C. J. It is evident that the part of the answer demurred to was not stated as in and of itself a defence, but that it was alleged as a part of the transaction set forth just preceding it, and not demurred.to. The fact that what precedes it is in one paragraph, and this matter in another, does not make it appear to have been set forth as an independent defence. • ' Order affirmed.