Hinkley v. Freick
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action in the district court for Eock county by E. B. Hinkley, substituted for the Eock County Bank, to recover $776 upon a promissory note. The facts are stated in the opinion. The reply was a general denial. The case was tried before Quinn, J., acting for the judge of the Thirteenth judicial district, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $217.22. From an order denying defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, he appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtJaggard, J.
This was an action to recover on a promissory note, with interest, sold and indorsed for value in the ordinary course of business to a bank for which plaintiff was substituted. The defendant answered, claiming that his signature was obtained by fraudulent representations, trick, and artifice, as to the nature and terms of the instrument so signed by him; that at the time of signing the same he did not believe it to be a bill of exchange, promissory note, or other negotiable paper; and that he was not guilty of negligence in signing such paper without knowledge of its terms.
*241Defendant is a…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Hollerman v. F. H. Peavey & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- M & M Securities Co. v. DirnbergerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
- Albrecht v. RathaiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- National Cash Register Co. v. MerriganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- State v. HorrSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1925
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.