Seager v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Seager v. Armstrong

109 N.W. 1134, 99 Minn. 526, 1906 Minn. LEXIS 492

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 14, 1906

DocketNos. 14,929—(53)

StatusPublished

This text of 109 N.W. 1134 (Seager v. Armstrong) 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.

Bluebook

Seager v. Armstrong, 109 N.W. 1134, 99 Minn. 526, 1906 Minn. LEXIS 492 (Mich. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only question presented in this case is whether the court below abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint. [527]*527A careful examination of the record discloses no ground upon which to base. the conclusion that it did abuse its discretion, and the order appealed from is affirmed. A substitution of parties defendant would serve no useful purpose in the absence of other amendments to the complaint, and we affirm the order as a whole.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The only question presented in this case is whether the court below abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint. [527]*527A careful examination of the record discloses no ground upon which to base. the conclusion that it did abuse its discretion, and the order appealed from is affirmed. A substitution of parties defendant would serve no useful purpose in the absence of other amendments to the complaint, and we affirm the order as a whole.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 N.W. 1134, 99 Minn. 526, 1906 Minn. LEXIS 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seager-v-armstrong-minn-1906.