Minnesota Supreme Court, 1924

United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. Melin

United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. Melin
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 14, 1924 · Wilson
160 Minn. 530; 200 N.W. 807; 1924 Minn. LEXIS 796 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

E. Luther Melin, pro se., E. Z. Mendow, 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 1950, 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

United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. Melin

Cases that cite this one

10 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

Wilson, C. J.

An order denying a motion to vacate an order striking out an answer as sham is appealable, but the motion to vacate must be made returnable before the expiration of the time to appeal from the original order.

If the original order was nonappealable then the order denying a motion to vacate is nonappealable. Security State Bank v. Brecht, 150 Minn. 502, 185 N. W. 1021. But here the original order was appealable.

The motion asking that the prior order striking out the answer be vacated and allowing defendant to file an amended answer was addressed to the discretion of the trial court and, in absence of a clear abuse of discretion, its decision in such case will not be disturbed by this court. In this case there was no abuse of discretion.

Order affirmed.

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