Legal Opinion
Edson v. O'Connell
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 12, 1934No. 29,568PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HOLT, Justice.
Action on a $6,000 promissory note, tried to the court and findings in favor of plaintiff:. The appeal is by defendants Johnson and O’Connell from the order denying them a new trial. Three' of defendants made no defense. •
Two questions are presented by appellants:(a) Was the note procured by misrepresentation or fraud?(b) Was plaintiff violating the blue sky law in the transaction leading up to the execution of the note?
The court found that the note was given for a good and sufficient consideration and that attached thereto and'as collateral security for the payment thereof were…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Vercellini v. U. S. I. Realty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Webster v. U. S. I. Realty Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
- Drees v. Minnesota Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
- Marin v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Johnstown Land Co. v. Brainerd Brewing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stern v. National City Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1938
- Shepard v. City Co. of New YorkDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1938
- Thomes v. AtkinsDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1943