Minnesota Supreme Court, 1890

Pratt v. Sparkman

Pratt v. Sparkman
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 4, 1890 · Gileillan
42 Minn. 448; 44 N.W. 663; 1890 Minn. LEXIS 58 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

H. A. Sumner, for appellant., Geo. H. Vernon, for respondent.

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

Pratt v. Sparkman

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

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