C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. Richardson
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1905, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- State ex rel. Engelhard v. Weber (Minn. 1905)
- Patrick v. McManus (Colo. 1890)
- Samuel Cupples Wooden Ware Co. v. Jensen (Supreme Court of Dakota 1886)
- Wright v. Jewell (Minn. 1885)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Action on three promissory notes, alleged by the complaint to have been executed by defendants in their partnership name, and payable to plaintiff, copies of the notes being set out in the complaint. The answer, verified, denies each and every allegation in the complaint, except as specifically admitted, qualified, or explained; and then, as to each of the notes, denies any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief whether the copy set out in the complaint is a true copy of any note ever given by defendants to plaintiff. Plaintiff moved that the answer be struck out as sham, and supported the motion by .affidavits showing the falseness of the denials. Defendants did not attempt to support the answer. Its falseness is indisputable. Interposing it was' a mere quibbling attempt to trifle with the administration of justice.
In Morton v. Jackson, 2 Minn. 180, (219,) it was said that an answer that contains only denials does not come within the definition of “sham,” and also that a verified answer cannot be struck out as sham. That suggests a definition of “sham” that is too narrow; an answer containing only denials may be just as false, just as readily-interposed in bad faith, and for the mere purpose of delay and obstructing the administration of justice, and therefore just as mischievous and reprehensible in every respect, as one setting up new
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.