Seager v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Seager v. Armstrong

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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Seager v. Armstrong. Read the opinion of the Court — 95 Minn. 414 →

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided December 14, 1906·No. Nos. 14,929—(53)·Published

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.

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

Pincite

109 N.W. 1134 (Seager v. Armstrong) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.