
    UNITED STATES ROOFING & PAINT COMPANY, INC. v. E. L. MELIN.
    
    November 14, 1924.
    No. 24,125.
    Appeal from denial of motion to vacate order striking out sham answer.
    1. 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 time to appeal from the original order expires.
    Same.
    2. If the original order is nonappealable, then the order denying a motion to vacate is nonappealable.
    
      Motion addressed to discretion of court.
    3. A motion seeking to vacate an order striking out an answer and permitting the filing of an amended answer is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.
    Action in replevin in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover certain property or $134.65, its value, and $50 for its detention. From an order, Reed, J., striking the answer and ordering judgment, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      E. Luther Melin, pro se.
    
      E. Z. Mendow, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 200 N. W. 807.
    
   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.  