United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. Melin
This text of 200 N.W. 807 (United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. Melin) 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
An order denying a motion to vacate an order striking out an answer as sham is appealable, but the motion to vacate must be made returnable before the expiration of the time to appeal from the original order.
If the original order was nonappealable then the order denying a motion to vacate is nonappealable. Security State Bank v. Brecht, 150 Minn. 502, 185 N. W. 1021. But here the original order was appealable.
The motion asking that the prior order striking out the answer be vacated and allowing defendant to file an amended answer was addressed to the discretion of the trial court and, in absence of a clear abuse of discretion, its decision in such case will not be disturbed by this court. In this case there was no abuse of discretion.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
200 N.W. 807, 160 Minn. 530, 1924 Minn. LEXIS 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-roofing-paint-co-v-melin-minn-1924.