Case Name: IRA G. BUTTERFIELD v. ELMER A. GILMORE
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1922-09-29
Citations: 153 Minn. 549
Docket Number: No. 23,023
Parties: IRA G. BUTTERFIELD v. ELMER A. GILMORE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 153
Pages: 549–550

Head Matter:
IRA G. BUTTERFIELD v. ELMER A. GILMORE.
September 29, 1922.
No. 23,023.
Objection to answer waived by failing to demur.
Objection to an answer that it does not state facts constituting a valid counterclaim is waived by plaintiff’s failure to demur or otherwise object to it. [Reporter.]
Action in the municipal court of Mankato to recover $50, money had and received for the use of plaintiff. The case was tried 'before Goff, J,, who denied motions of plaintiff and defendant for judgment on the findings, made findings and ordered judgment in favor of defendant for $12.50. From an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, plaintiff appealed.
Affirmed.
William F. Hughes & J. A. Baker, for appellant.
C. J. Laurisch, for respondent.
Reported in 189 N. W. 933.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The evidence sustains the findings of the trial court, the conclusions of law are sustained by the facts so found, and thereon judgment was properly ordered for defendant. The point that the answer does not state facts constituting a legal or valid counterclaim, because it arises out of unsettled partnership dealings, was waived by the failure of plaintiff to demur or otherwise before trial directly raise the objection. Walker v. Johnson, 28 Minn. 147, 9 N. W. 632; Talty v. Torling, 79 Minn. 386, 82 N. W. 632.
Order affirmed.