Minneapolis Holding Co. v. Matchan
This text of 219 N.W. 457 (Minneapolis Holding Co. v. Matchan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The principal purpose of this action was to annul for want of jurisdiction certain judgments which, so long as they stand, are a bar to plaintiff’s claim of title to the real estate involved in Matchan v. Phoenix Land Inv. Co. 159 Minn. 132, 198 N. W. 417. A related case is Betcher v. Midland Nat. Bank, 167 Minn. 484, 209 N. W. 325.
The answers, if true, show that plaintiff’s claim is utterly baseless. The replies did not meet by denial or avoidance the allegations of the answers which are fatal to plaintiff’s alleged cause of action. In consequence, the replies were stricken as sham and frivolous and judgment ordered for defendants. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
The record discloses that plaintiff made no showing in opposition to the motion to strike its replies and for judgment which could *402 have prevented the granting of that motion. See Investors Sec. Co. v. Bohanon, 168 Minn. 471, 210 N. W. 590, and cases cited. It is too clear for argument that there was no issue to try and that the appeal serves only the purpose of delay. It is frivolous and must be dismissed. See Bardwell-Robinson Co. v. Brown, 57 Minn. 140, 58 N. W. 872; Callaghan v. U. P. R. Co. 148 Minn. 482, 182 N. W. 1004; 4 C. J. 1125.
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
219 N.W. 457, 174 Minn. 401, 1928 Minn. LEXIS 1162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minneapolis-holding-co-v-matchan-minn-1928.