United States Roofing & Paint Co. v. Melin
UNITED STATES ROOFING & PAINT COMPANY, INC. v. E. L. MELIN
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.