History
  • No items yet
midpage
Pratt v. Sparkman
42 Minn. 448
Minn.
1890
Check Treatment
Gileillan, C. J.

It is evident that the part of the answer demurred to was not stated as in and of itself a defence, but that it was alleged as a part of the transaction set forth just preceding it, and not demurred.to. The fact that what precedes it is in one paragraph, and this matter in another, does not make it appear to have been set forth as an independent defence. • '

Order affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Pratt v. Sparkman
Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota
Date Published: Feb 4, 1890
Citation: 42 Minn. 448
Court Abbreviation: Minn.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.