¶1The only question presented in this case is whether the court below abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint. *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.
99 Minn. 526
Seager v. Armstrong
Decided December 14, 1906
Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1906-12-14
Appeal by plaintiffs, as trustees in bankruptcy of the estate of Moses K. Armstrong, bankrupt, from an order of the district court for Watonwan county, Quinn, J., acting for the judge of the sixth judicial district, denying a motion to substitute De Witt C. Armstrong as the executor of the last will of defendant, Martha Armstrong, deceased, as defendant, and refusing to grant plaintiffs permission to amend the complaint and a new trial.
Affirmed · Decided 1906-12-14