Minnesota Supreme Court, 1919

Licensed Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Denton

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 31, 1919 · Dibell

144 Minn. 81; 174 N.W. 526; 1919 Minn. LEXIS 687 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Edward M. Nash, for appellant., Brady, Robertson & Bonner, 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 1975, 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.

Wild v. Rarig (Minn. 1975)

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

Dibell, J.

Action on promissory notes made 'by the defendant to the plaintiff. There was a verdict directed for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

1. The case was here before and is reported in 140 Minn. 461, 168 N. W. 553. There the order of the court striking out the defendant’s answer as sham was sustained. The defendant filed an amended answer. He moved for a specific amendment before trial and that was allowed. At the trial he asked to amend by specifically denying the incorporation of the plaintiff as is required by statute in order to make an issue. G. S. 1913, § 7774. This was denied and error is assigned. The allowance of *82the amendment was discretionary. Nor does it seem likely that it was material. Moorman Mnfg. Co. v. Haack, 135 Minn. 126, 160 N. W. 258, and cases cited. There was no error.

2. The other errors available on the record are referred to in the third assignment of errors and relate to three questions asked of the defendant to which objections were sustained:

“What were these notes given in payment for at the time you signed them ?”

“For what purpose was the money to be used which these notes were to be given for?”

“What representations did the committee, officers or agents of the association make to you at the time you signed these notes?” .

The first two invited conclusions and not facts or conversations. It does not appear that there was a committee, as assumed in the third question, nor that the plaintiff knew the officers and agents of the association. The contrary, if anything, appears. No foundation was laid. There was no effective offer to prove. The court is not strict in its holdings as to conclusions nor as to the necessity of offers of proof, but error must affirmatively appear to justify a reversal and none does.

Order affirmed.

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