United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. Melin

200 N.W. 807, 160 Minn. 530, 1924 Minn. LEXIS 796
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided November 14, 1924·No. No. 24,125·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Wilson, C. J.

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

United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. Melin, 200 N.W. 807, 160 Minn. 530, 1924 Minn. LEXIS 796 (Mich. 1924).

200 N.W. 807 (United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. Melin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bennett v. Johnson
42 N.W.2d 44 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1950)
Simons v. Cowan
14 N.W.2d 356 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
Nelson v. Auman
13 N.W.2d 38 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1944)
Johnson v. Kruse
285 N.W. 715 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1939)
Gilmore v. City of Mankato
269 N.W. 113 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1936)
Board of Park Commissioners v. Bremner
252 N.W. 451 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1934)
Thompson v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.
226 N.W. 700 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1929)
Davis v. Royce
219 N.W. 928 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1928)
Bruce v. Cohn
215 N.W. 520 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1927)