Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

MINNEAPOLIS HOLDING COMPANY v. GEORGE L. MATCHAN AND ANOTHER. Reported in 219 N.W. 457.

Appeal dismissed because frivolous.

It appearing conclusively that this appeal can serve no purposes other than those of delay, it is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The principal purpose of this action was to annul for want of jurisdiction certain judgments which, so long as they stand, are a bar to plaintiff's claim of title to the real estate involved in Matchan v. Phoenix Land Inv. Co. 159 Minn. 132, 198 N.W. 417. A related case is Betcher v. Midland Nat. Bank, 167 Minn. 484, 209 N.W. 325.

The answers, if true, show that plaintiff's claim is utterly baseless. The replies did not meet by denial or avoidance the allegations of the answers which are fatal to plaintiff's alleged cause of action. In consequence, the replies were stricken as sham and frivolous and judgment ordered for defendants. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.

The record discloses that plaintiff made no showing in opposition to the motion to strike its replies and for judgment which could have prevented the granting of that motion. See Investors Sec. Co. v. Bohanon, 168 Minn. 471, 210 N.W. 590, and cases cited. It is too clear for argument that there was no issue to try and that the appeal serves only the purpose of delay. It is frivolous and must be dismissed. See Bardwell-Robinson Co. v. Brown, 57 Minn. 140, 58 N.W. 872; Callaghan v. U. P. R. Co. 148 Minn. 482, 182 N.W. 1004; 4 C.J. 1125.

Appeal dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MINNEAPOLIS HOLDING CO. v. MATCHAN
(May 11, 1928)