Minnesota Supreme Court, 1894

Bardwell-Robinson Co. v. Brown

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 4, 1894 · Buck, Canty, Sick, Took

57 Minn. 140; 58 N.W. 872; 1894 Minn. LEXIS 242 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

William Watts, for appellants., Brown'& Carr, 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 1934, 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.

Schmidt v. Agricultural Ins. Co. (Minn. 1934)
Schmidt v. Agricultural Insurance (Minn. 1934)
Minneapolis Holding Co. v. Matchan (Minn. 1928)
James H. Bishop & Co. v. Buckeye Publishing Co. (Minn. 1894)

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

Canty, J.

Plaintiff brought an action against the three defendants, alleging that they were partners, and that they made to plaintiff the note in suit. The defendants answered with a general denial. The plaintiff made a motion to strike out the answer as sham, and presented affidavits which furnished very strong proof that defendants Brown and Charles C. Shapleigh were partners, and made and delivered the note to plaintiff. The defendants op*142posed the motion only with affidavits that the defendant Thomas C. Shapleigh never was a partner in the firm. The court below struck out the answer as to Brown and Charles C. Shapleigh, and ordered judgment against them, and they alone appeal. They simply try to hide behind Thomas C. Shapleigh, and claim that his answer will protect them, although their answer is sham.

It is too well settled and understood in this state to require any argument or citation of statute or authority that the plaintiff may sue several as joint defendants, and recover judgment against a less number. We are of the opinion that, as to these two defendants, the answer was clearly and palpably sham.

We are of the opinion that this appeal was taken merely for delay, that the order appealed from should be affirmed, and that additional costs should be allowed, amounting to three per cent, of the judgment to be entered in the District Court, to be taxed and entered as a part of that judgment. So ordered.

Buck, J., absent, sick, took no part.

(Opinion published 58 N. W. 872.)

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