Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

93 Minn. 232

Monitor Drill Co. v. Moody

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 28, 1904

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1904-10-28

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district court for Wright county, entered pursuant to the order of Giddings, J.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1943

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1904-10-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Action upon promissory note. The answer admitted the allegations of the complaint, and alleged new matter in the nature of a counter^ claim, which plaintiff moved to strike out, on the ground that it was ’sham and frivolous, and for judgment as for want of an answer. The motion was granted, and this appeal presents -the single question, whether an answer which consists of a counterclaim may be stricken out as sham and frivolous. We have no hesitation in saying that it may. Section 5236, G. S. 1894, provides that the answer may contain new matter constituting a counterclaim, and section 5240 reads:

Sham, irrelevant, or frivolous answers, defenses or replies, and frivolous demurrers, may be stricken out, or judgment rendered notwithstanding the same, on motion as for want of an answer.

¶2A counterclaim, therefore, although consisting of new matter, may constitute an answer, within the meaning of these sections, and consequently may be stricken out on motion as sham or frivolous..

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/93/minn/232 · .json · Public domain