midpage

Pratt v. SparkmanPratt v. Sparkman

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Feb 4, 1890
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Gileillan
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
Citations: 44 N.W. 663; 42 Minn. 448; 1890 Minn. LEXIS 58
Court Abbreviation: Minn.
Log In