Dean v. Howard
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 1946, 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
1 later published case cites this decision.
- State v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co. (Minn. 1946)
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
The order overruling the demurrer to the fourth paragraph of the answer should be affirmed, for the reason 'that a demurrer will not lie to a part of what is alleged as constituting a defense or counterclaim. Admitting that the defendant sought in the answer to plead a breach of warranty as a counterclaim, the whole of the facts alleged and bearing upon that subject are not embraced in the paragraph demurred to. The second, at least, if not the third and fifth, paragraphs, contain allegations bearing upon that subject, and the whole pleading does not justify the conclusion that the pleader intended to rely upon what is alleged in paragraph 4 alone as constituting a defense or counterclaim; hence a demurrer to that paragraph merely does not test the sufficiency of the answer, even as to the subject to which that paragraph relates. While the several paragraphs are all numbered consecutively, it is apparent that this numbering was intended only to mark the paragraphs, and not to indicate separate or independent defenses.
The answer, certainly, is not in commendable form, but its defects are not reached by this demurrer. As to whether the entire answer shows a breach of the warranty by the plaintiffs we do not determine.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.