Minnesota Supreme Court, 1885

C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. Pelan

C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. Pelan
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 7, 1885 · Dickinson
34 Minn. 243; 25 N.W. 406; 1885 Minn. LEXIS 203 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Warner, Stevens & Lawrence, for appellant., Kneeshaw á Bevans, for respondents.

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 1947, 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

C. N. Nelson Lumber Co. v. Pelan

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

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

DicKinson, J.

The court below overruled the demurrer to the answer for the reason that it contained no allegations of new matter, but consisted only of a denial of a portion of the complaint. This decision we affirm. The statute only authorizes a demurrer to “an answer containing new matter, when upon its face it does not constitute a counterclaim or defence.” Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 100; Lund v. Seaman’s Savings Bank, 23 How. Pr. 258; Ketcham v. Zerega, 1 E. D. Smith, 553; Rice v. O’Connor, 10 Abb. Pr. 362; Oleson v. Hendrickson, 12 Iowa, 222. The appellant refers, in support of its right to demur, to a remark in the opinion in Morton v. Jackson, 2 Minn. 180, (219,) where it is said, in respect to answers claimed to be frivolous, that “the relief desired in such eases may always be obtained by demurrer.” It is at least doubtful whether this was said with reference to answers consisting merely of denials of the allegations of the complaint; but however this may have been, the effect of a decision cannot be given to the language, for the question presented for decision was only as to whether such an answer had been properly stricken out on motion.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.